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

Replacement.ai

replacement.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 725 posts

Re: Replacement.ai

#91

Post by [deleted] »

Keyframe wrote: post #31
sincerely wrote: post #9

I kind of get it, but at the same time...isn't "we made a machine to do something that people used to do" basically the entire history of of technology? It feels like somehow we should have figured out how to cope with the "but what about the old jobs" problem

isn't "we made a machine to do something that people used to do" basically the entire history of of technology? yes, until we reached art and thinking part. Big part of the problem might be that we reached that part first before the chores with AI.

[deleted]

Re: Replacement.ai

#92

Post by qgin »

yujzgzc wrote: post #46
_heimdall wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If ML is limited to replacing some tasks that humans do, yes it will be much like any past technological innovation. If we build AGI, we don't have a past comparison for that. Technologies so far have always replaced a subset of what humans currently do, not everything at once.

AGI does not replace "everything". It might replace most of the work that someone can do behind a desk, but there are a lot of jobs that involve going out there and working with reality outside of the computer.

There will most likely be period where robotics lags AGI, but how long will that really last?

Especially with essentially unlimited AGI robotics engineers to work on the problem?

Re: Replacement.ai

#93

Post by khaledh »

The more you try to solve a problem at a large scale, the less empathetic to humans it becomes. This has been happening for a long while now, and IMO has caused society to become "disconnected" from each other and more "connected" to devices. AI is just a new catalyst to this process. My fear is that a time will come where interacting with humans becomes the exception, not the norm.

Re: Replacement.ai

#94

Post by qgin »

swarnie wrote: post #70
yujzgzc wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AGI does not replace "everything". It might replace most of the work that someone can do behind a desk, but there are a lot of jobs that involve going out there and working with reality outside of the computer.

"Everything" might be hyperbole but a huge percentage of the workforce in my country is office/desk based. Included in that % is a lot of the middleclass and stepping stone jobs to get out of manual work. If AI kills the middle and transitional roles i anticipate anarchy.

I haven’t heard a good argument why this isn’t the most likely path.

Re: Replacement.ai

#95

Post by Loughla »

_el1s7 wrote: post #63

I'm confused, I don't see what they're offering in this website, looks like a blog post. They just got their hands on a catchy domain name.

I'm learning that hn isn't great at understanding satire. I find that interesting but I'm not sure why.

Re: Replacement.ai

#96

Post by eterm »

MY annoyance is when AI is used instead of better machines.

I just logged onto github and saw a "My open pull requests button".

Instead of taking me to a page which quickly queried a database, it opened a conversation with copilot which then slowly thought about how to work out my open pull requests.

I closed the window before it had an answer.

Why are we replacing actual engineering with expensive guesswork?

Re: Replacement.ai

#97

Post by Loughla »

alterom wrote: post #90
nisten wrote: post #74

I'm very much pro hyper-automation, especially for all government work... but can't help but think this type of branding is just in bad faith and that these are not good people. It just screams fried serotonin-circuits to me. I don't like it. I looked at the site for 2-3 seconds and I want nothing to do with these guys. Do I think we should stop this type of competitive behaviour fueled by kids and investors both mic…

>I'm very much pro hyper-automation, especially for all government work... but can't help but think this type of branding is just in bad faith and that these are not good people. >It just screams fried-serotonin circuits to me. I don't like it. I looked at the site for 2-3 seconds and I want nothing to do with these guys. Enlightenment is realizing they aren't any different from those other guys. >Edit: They got me w…

That's. . . That's not great.

Re: Replacement.ai

#98

Post by philjackson »

TechSquidTV wrote: post #86

Personal belief, but robots coming for your jobs is not a valid argument against robots. If robots can do a job better and/or faster, they should be the ones doing the jobs. Specialization is how we got to the future. So the problem isn't robots, it's the structure of how we humans rely on jobs for income. I don't necessarily feel like it's the AI company's problem to fix either. This is what government is for, and n…

> This is what government is for

They're busy selling watches whilst people can still afford them thanks to having jobs.

Re: Replacement.ai

#99

Post by wahnfrieden »

TechSquidTV wrote: post #86

Personal belief, but robots coming for your jobs is not a valid argument against robots. If robots can do a job better and/or faster, they should be the ones doing the jobs. Specialization is how we got to the future. So the problem isn't robots, it's the structure of how we humans rely on jobs for income. I don't necessarily feel like it's the AI company's problem to fix either. This is what government is for, and n…

It's also what organized labor is for. Workers can't wait on government to offer aid without leverage. We would not have weekends off or other protections we now take for granted if we waited on government to govern for us as if it was a caring parent.

So that would mean it is in fact the responsibility of the people at robot/AI companies (and across industries). It's not something we can just delegate to role-based authorities to sort out on our behalf.

Re: Replacement.ai

#100

Post by yoyohello13 »

TechSquidTV wrote: post #86

Personal belief, but robots coming for your jobs is not a valid argument against robots. If robots can do a job better and/or faster, they should be the ones doing the jobs. Specialization is how we got to the future. So the problem isn't robots, it's the structure of how we humans rely on jobs for income. I don't necessarily feel like it's the AI company's problem to fix either. This is what government is for, and n…

I also agree with this, but I think there is a need to slow the replacement, by a bit, to reduce the short term societal harm and allow society to catch up. Robots can’t do the jobs if society collapses due to unrest.

Progress is great obviously, but progress as fast as possible with no care about the consequences is more motivated by money, not the common good.

Post reply on HN