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

Cannibalism

b-ark.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–87 of 87 posts

Re: Cannibalism

#81

Post by wiseowise »

watwut wrote: post #30
wiseowise wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would it? Who, with a half brain, thought that you’d ever work less ?

Literally no one, no one even claimed we would work less due to AI. It is one of many absurd claims about AI here. There was no period in which we would get think pieces predicting more leisure time. We had plenty of think pieces about making people obsolete, about destruction, generally in celebratory tone. I cant even think of period where AI think pieces would promises much positive - it was sold to CEOs, so pitch…

> Literally no one, no one even claimed we would work less due to AI.

Yeah? What is this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADUlC-fWKsY

Re: Cannibalism

#82

Post by yifanl »

po1nt wrote: post #31

Fantastic article. However author never considered that I'm looking forward to my job being automated. That's like a whole point of programming.

An automated job is not a job at all.

Re: Cannibalism

#83

Post by LearnYouALisp »

leethomas wrote: post #15
tags2k wrote: post #2

I was with the article - especially the bit about the 10% an LLM loses and how that loss can be de-amplified across eventual meaning, but then... "My first instinct is to laugh and shake my head. One need not look very far to find indignant software developers absolutely certain that their jobs cannot possibly be automated away by the very tools their industry contemporaries are creating to replace them. I suspect yo…

Not the OP but this line really got my attention > I'd love to see an LLM even fractionally capable of some of the things my job entails If you don't mind could you please elaborate on what tasks or knowledge your job requires that you feel an LLM isn't even _fractionally_ capable of? I understand if you said that out of emotion and frustration, but if you're serious I'm intensely and genuinely curious because nowada…

If we're truthful, yes the LLM ("agent") can't do much by itself, but thanks to all the theft which no one was compensated for, they can do something based on what was done.

Re: Cannibalism

#84

Post by grafmax »

barrkel wrote: post #76
9dev wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That applies to an awful lot of cases though? Especially during Marx' time.

The trouble is thinking in terms of class. It encourages one to generalize from instances to the group, and from the group to individuals. Cherry-pick your examples and you smear the group. Invoke the smeared group, and you target the individual. It's structurally isomorphic to racism and any other -ism.

The poor capitalists with all the money and power, making the decisions at the highest levels, guiding society's direction... can you imagine they might be responsible for the shittier and shittier turns our world is taking?

Class is the shape of power and exploitation under capitalism. Some own, others work to enrich those that own. That's all class is. Being frank about the real power differences in our society and our world isn't an ism.

Re: Cannibalism

#85

Post by thedevilslawyer »

js8 wrote: post #75
thedevilslawyer wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's absolutely a skill. That you're putting this up as "charisma" simply shows you have not explored agentic engineering. If you are indeed interested, this is a good beginner: https://simonwillison.net/guides/agentic-engineering-pattern...

Sorry, it's not engineering, it's cargo-culting as engineering. Engineering is based on improved formal understanding of the process, not magical incantantions. And yes I do use these things. It's like saying copy-pasting code is a skill.

Until you think using agents is a magical incantation, you will not be able to actually engage with it and develop the skill.

As evidence that it is a skill beyond copy paste, you should look around (online and offline) at the really smart people who are able to derive so much from it.

Re: Cannibalism

#86

Post by selfhoster1312 »

CalRobert wrote: post #74
selfhoster1312 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many economists, already from the 19th century, claimed that technological progress would reduce the workweek. Some imagined we'd work 3 days per week, others only 1. Some imagined we'd work a few hours everyday. I remember many people even on this very site claiming AI would help humanity. I think the most ridiculous the most ridiculous claim was helping fight climate change, but helping produce more leisure time by…

Those economists probably didn't think we'd make building a home default-illegal.

That's true, but they also probably didn't think individual residence would become a norm (despite all the problems it generates), and probably didn't think secondary housing would become a normal for middle classes (vacations were a high bourgeoisie thing entirely until fairly recently).

Re: Cannibalism

#87

Post by citadel_melon »

Joker_vD wrote: post #79
citadel_melon wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a spectrum between an employer’s monopoly/oligopoly over labor that Marx’s narrative presupposes and a perfectly competitive labor market your narrative presupposes. Reality varies between these two extremes in different labor markets. In some labor markets, the employer has so much leverage they’re essentially a local monopolist; in other markets, employees have enough leverage that the respective labor mar…

> a perfectly efficient labor market But in a perfectly efficient market, the good would be traded at its marginal price. And the marginal price of labour is the sustenance wage, not the marginal product of labor as neoclassical economists seem to believe.

A perfectly efficient market doesn’t necessarily mean that a good is traded at its marginal price. You’re instead describing a perfectly competitive market. An economy is Pareto efficient (aka perfectly efficient) when resources are allocated such that no one can be made better off without making someone else worse off.

Even if I give into your premise — which I don’t — marginal price would differ for different careers, such as doctors who had to take on more education costs and opportunity cost and thus have a higher marginal price above bare sustenance.

Post reply on HN