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

You can just say it

noperator.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 241 posts

Re: You can just say it

#91

Post by rogerrogerr »

thrownthatway wrote: post #62
drooby wrote: post #21

There is a class of human output that will retain value regardless of AI capability: art and sport. People care about the creator. The source defines the work, the awe, and the emotional response. But almost all output outside that space is at risk of AI displacement. Corporations are amoral entities that optimize for profit, and they follow the law only as much as they must. The law is our collective action. We soci…

[flagged]

As a lifelong conservative and capitalist, even I think this might be the thing that makes some form of socialism possible.

Re: You can just say it

#92

Post by hosh »

In my twenties, I came across an idea from one of Ken Wilbur’s books that helped settle a conundrum for me. What happens when one wants to honor all life? Are they all equal?

He made a distinction between intrinsic value and extrinsic value. Plankton is not as complex of a lifeform as whales, yet whales cannot live without plankton. One has more intrinsic value and the other has more extrinsic value. There is an interrelationship that does not have to flatten value for everything and everyone.

LLMs are trained from the language corpus of our collective consciousness. It reflects our collective, all the wonderful, beautiful, and horrific things we can dream of and put into words.

Re: You can just say it

#93

Post by B1FF_PSUVM »

avazhi wrote: post #63

“ Human dignity does not depend on a person’s abilities” I mean, this is just begging the question. Many people disagree with this and disagree with the notion that humans are innately valuable. The blog post just seems like a lot of copium from somebody who really hopes he’s right. Citing Genesis and an Encyclical might strengthen one’s argument for a particular demographic, but for many it will simply be unconvinci…

> "Human dignity does not depend on a person's abilities"

That should be a hard line no one is allowed to cross. If you do, no logic will keep you from ending up in a very bad place.

For instance, I'm a big fan of Terry Pratchett's Discworld stories, where his humorous and compassionate tales comment on much of human experience. It's a fantasy world with wizards, trolls, dwarfs, vampires, etc.

In one book he goes into ghouls - obscure, despised and persecuted almost to extinction, but in the story it is found they secretly make beautiful ethereal music. So a concert is arranged to present the music, and all is well, the end. Except for my doubts - I mean, if they didn't make nice music, then it would be alright to dispose of them?

Benthamite utility has a particularly ugly underside to it, and it is easily converted into "disposal of negative value" of the nastiest kind. Which can only be stopped by a moral hard line, as stated.

Re: You can just say it

#94

Post by mettamage »

beering wrote: post #5

So many people have spent a lot of energy dehumanizing others on the basis of their “contribution to society”. Ideas like, if you aren’t employed, you shouldn’t have access to healthcare, etc. I can only hope that AI can force people to rethink whether their value is tied to their work output or not.

> Ideas like, if you aren’t employed, you shouldn’t have access to healthcare, etc.

Fucking hell, there are so many bullshit jobs. I'm doing one of them. I'm sure a homeless person having a few heartfelt conversations per day because he has the time and is open to it is giving more value to society than me right now.

Re: You can just say it

#95

Post by gavinray »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #43
gavinray wrote: post #33

"Humans are valuable" For what, and to whom? This is a very anthropo-centric and hubristic view, in my opinion. I dont think a human life inherently has any more value than anything else that possesses phenomenal consciousness This of course makes me somewhat of a hypocrite as I eat meat, but you make some tradeoffs in moral resolve in the name of pragmatism and economy.

> than anything else that possesses phenomenal consciousness Can you give an example of anything else you think might possess phenomenal consciousness?

A dog

Re: You can just say it

#96

Post by skiboyec »

drooby wrote: post #21

There is a class of human output that will retain value regardless of AI capability: art and sport. People care about the creator. The source defines the work, the awe, and the emotional response. But almost all output outside that space is at risk of AI displacement. Corporations are amoral entities that optimize for profit, and they follow the law only as much as they must. The law is our collective action. We soci…

Service work may last longer than other sectors, as some portion of the value provided in service work is human connection.

But I agree, when our minds and bodies are no longer capable of doing things that machines can’t, the only thing we have left to sell is our humanity

Re: You can just say it

#97

Post by flexagoon »

roenxi wrote: post #53
cautiouscat wrote: post #19

This quote from the authors friend really hit home with me. > “If you’re going to use an LLM to write me an email, I’d much rather you just send me the prompt; at least then I’d have an idea of what you actually meant to say.” I’m not saying there’s no merit in adding a bit of politeness and professionalism to your communication, which I’m sure the prompt itself lacks. However the root of what you’re trying to convey…

Yeah, that's one of those sentiments where people say it but they probably don't mean it literally. Much like if your boss asks for honest feedback giving it to them with both barrels is a career limiting move. You make subtle mistakes in how you perceive the world, the interlocutor makes similar mistakes and the damage those mistakes do is limited if you follow some structural rules of how to communicate (aka polite…

I would absolutely prefer just getting the raw prompt. Emails are already ridden with enough completely unnecessary parts that are somehow still the cultural norm (eg. signatures). At least let the important part be to the point. I yearn for a world where people write emails the same way they write text messages.

Re: You can just say it

#98

Post by lantry »

gavinray wrote: post #33

"Humans are valuable" For what, and to whom? This is a very anthropo-centric and hubristic view, in my opinion. I dont think a human life inherently has any more value than anything else that possesses phenomenal consciousness This of course makes me somewhat of a hypocrite as I eat meat, but you make some tradeoffs in moral resolve in the name of pragmatism and economy.

How is eating meat pragmatic or economic? A vegetarian diet is less expensive and just as healthy.

Re: You can just say it

#99

Post by essayist »

Way before bots/LLM, I disciplined myself (most of the time) to write email with "in brief" at the top, followed by "Details".

"In brief: Can you bring a dozen brownies to the noon lunch tomorrow?

Details: Dessert plans fell through. Your brownies are the best, and you owe me..."

This structure is liberating for me. I can distill what I want/need into something brief and even brusque, knowing that people will read on if the need justification. It also makes me clarify what I want. Probably not appropriate if I'm too far down the totem pole from the addressee.

Re: You can just say it

#100

Post by xyru »

sbiru93 wrote: post #3

Incredible. Lately, I’ve been going through a bit of an identity crisis. I know I’m a passionate and not-so-bad developer, but with all this talk about AI, I couldn’t really understand if that was an end of an era for me. But while reading this article, something clicked, it makes so much sense. It really made me feel better.

I just wanted to chime in and say this has also been bothering me quite a bit the past few months. You're not alone.
Post reply on HN