Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why we don’t use AI

yarnspinner.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–86 of 86 posts

Re: Why we don’t use AI

#81

Post by xyzsparetimexyz »

nomel wrote: post #27
dacox wrote: post #16

The reflexive and moralistic anti-AI takes are starting to get more annoying than the actual AI slop

I suspect a subpopulation of software development is going to become a bit religious, for a short while, split into "morally pure anti AI" and those who are busy using software as a means to an end to solve some real world problem. I think the tools will eventually be embraced, out of necessity, as they become more practically useful (being somewhere around "somewhat useful" right now). As a result, I think we'll eve…

Had he been able to, should Mozart have used a LLM to help him compose Don Giovanni? There are things more important than being productive.

Re: Why we don’t use AI

#82

Post by nomel »

xyzsparetimexyz wrote: post #81
nomel wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect a subpopulation of software development is going to become a bit religious, for a short while, split into "morally pure anti AI" and those who are busy using software as a means to an end to solve some real world problem. I think the tools will eventually be embraced, out of necessity, as they become more practically useful (being somewhere around "somewhat useful" right now). As a result, I think we'll eve…

Had he been able to, should Mozart have used a LLM to help him compose Don Giovanni? There are things more important than being productive.

if you think your code is art like mozarts music, then you're probably part of the first group rather than the group trying to simply get something practical done with software as a means to do it.

Should Mozart have constructed the instruments himself? Or plucked the strings himself? No, he had someone else take care of all that so he could compose music. AI can be used the same way: take care of boring stuff so I can compose a solution to a real world problem. No, that doesn't mean AI has to do everything for you, which outright bans don't seem to be able to comprehend.

Re: Why we don’t use AI

#83

Post by marcus_holmes »

danaris wrote: post #61
marcus_holmes wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the bit I get frustrated by - the need for jerbs at all. If we manage to replace all the workers with AI - that's awesome! We will obviously have to work out a system for everyone to get shelter, and food, and so on. But that post-scarcity utopia of everyone being able to do whatever they want with their time and not have to work, that's the goal, right? That's where we want to be. Jerbs are an interim nightm…

But right now , there is no way in hell we're going to get any kind of support for people who lost their jobs to AI. Not in the US, at least. Look at the current administration. Do you think they would even consider providing anything like UBI? They actively want to take us down the cyberpunk dystopia route (or even the Christofascist regressive dystopia route...). They want us to become serfs to technofeudal overlor…

Agree, but this is how revolutions happen, and everyone knows it, so they're going to have to do something.

Re: Why we don’t use AI

#84

Post by danaris »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #83
danaris wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But right now , there is no way in hell we're going to get any kind of support for people who lost their jobs to AI. Not in the US, at least. Look at the current administration. Do you think they would even consider providing anything like UBI? They actively want to take us down the cyberpunk dystopia route (or even the Christofascist regressive dystopia route...). They want us to become serfs to technofeudal overlor…

Agree, but this is how revolutions happen, and everyone knows it, so they're going to have to do something .

I think you (and many others) are overestimating the degree to which everyone does, in fact, know that (everyone should, but not everyone does...), while simultaneously underestimating the degree to which the people in charge right now think they're the absolute most specialest people. Or, in some cases, literally God's chosen.

Furthermore, they really, really want to be absolute rulers being treated like (the popular conception of) medieval lords by all of us, the peasants. They deeply believe that we are beneath them; that we do not deserve to have the means to thrive or even survive if they do not explicitly grant it to us; that our natural state is that of supplication, and theirs is that of power and control.

UBI would give that up. It would give us the unconditional means to live, regardless of their approval. And that they cannot abide.

Re: Why we don’t use AI

#85

Post by marcus_holmes »

danaris wrote: post #84
marcus_holmes wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree, but this is how revolutions happen, and everyone knows it, so they're going to have to do something .

I think you (and many others) are overestimating the degree to which everyone does, in fact, know that (everyone should , but not everyone does...), while simultaneously underestimating the degree to which the people in charge right now think they're the absolute most specialest people. Or, in some cases, literally God's chosen. Furthermore, they really, really want to be absolute rulers being treated like (the popul…

I don't know any billionaires personally to be able to verify your statement, but I get the feeling this is a media caricature rather than their actual opinions. I've met a few tech millionaires and their opinions vary pretty wildly on this stuff.

Re: Why we don’t use AI

#86

Post by danaris »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #85
danaris wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you (and many others) are overestimating the degree to which everyone does, in fact, know that (everyone should , but not everyone does...), while simultaneously underestimating the degree to which the people in charge right now think they're the absolute most specialest people. Or, in some cases, literally God's chosen. Furthermore, they really, really want to be absolute rulers being treated like (the popul…

I don't know any billionaires personally to be able to verify your statement, but I get the feeling this is a media caricature rather than their actual opinions. I've met a few tech millionaires and their opinions vary pretty wildly on this stuff.

Well...millionaires and billionaires aren't exactly the same group, are they?

An ordinary person, working diligently at a decent-paying job, can save up a million dollars if they're not unlucky.

Even a million-dollar-a-year salary is only 10x a fairly modest tech salary of 100k.

But a billion dollars a year is 1000 times that.

So...no, I don't know any billionaires personally either. I'm extrapolating from the things they say and do. But frankly, with the way the media is today, do you really think that more than a tiny fraction of it is trying to portray billionaires as worse than they are? Given how much of it is actually controlled by them, and bears the clear marks of their editorial hand?

Post reply on HN