8 ms·

On the other hand, in my country we have the stereotypical lazy government employee who is overpaid and doesn't work hard. The government could then save money

On the other hand, in my country we have the stereotypical lazy government employee who is overpaid and doesn't work hard. The government could then save money and provide better service for menial tasks such as "what permit do I need to do such and such"

candiddevmike 3y ago
Isn't that the dream though? To be overpaid and not have to work hard?
- doctor_eval 3y ago
  Yes, but that’s for us tech workers, not the common prole. /s
- stavros 3y ago
  Not if you're the employer, which, if you're the taxpayer, you are.
  - throwanem 3y ago
    I think you meant 'employer'.
    - stavros 3y ago
      I did, thank you!
      - throwanem 3y ago
        Sure thing. You're still wrong on the merits, though. To pick one example, the folks who work at my local MVA ("DMV" in most states) office do not work for me, though they're paid out of my taxes and those of everyone else who earns in Maryland. They don't report to me. Nor should they, because if they did, they would also report to that freak who drives a car plastered with QAnon garbage around Perry Hall. My city councilman and my General Assembly representatives work for me, but the people employed to deliver services managed by the state and city government do not.
        otterley 3y ago
        The point is that we as collective taxpayers don't want to overpay for government services. And that point is a good one.
        throwanem 3y ago
        Is it? Define 'overpay.'
        otterley 3y ago
        Have you never bought a snack at an airport or a theme park?
        throwanem 3y ago
        Oh, boy. Just don't bring gold-fringed flags into it, okay?
  - hgomersall 3y ago
    No you're not. They're employed by the state which is managed by the politicians you elect. I presume you mean to imply that civil servants are paid by your taxes, but that's not true either if we're talking about a sovereign state - a moments consideration would show that spending must preceed taxation, which is true as a matter of accounting. Really you'd do better to note that state employees allow you to get money enabling you to pay your taxes (but that's also not a very helpful way to look at it).
    - bombcar 3y ago
      If you're trying to apply modern money theory, it only works at the federal level (in the USA), state and local governments are directly affected by taxation which must precede spending (or they have to issue warrants or bonds). This comes back to bite California every time there is a major tax revenue crunch for whatever reason.
      - candiddevmike 3y ago
        How does that work with states like IL being massively in debt due to overspending and pensions?
        bombcar 3y ago
        If "in debt" means "they can keep issuing bonds and people are buying them" then they're fine. If it means "they cannot make payments on bonds and cannot issue new ones because nobody wants them" then the Feds will have to step in, or they'll have to liquidate state assets (including privatizing various governmental functions, selling land and leasing it back, etc), or raise taxes to balance the budget. They literally cannot print money. This cycle has already destroyed a few cities (usually the city gets swallowed by the county). There's a step where they issue "warrants" like CA did a few times: https://taxfoundation.org/blog/california-issuing-state-warrants-pay-bills/ https://taxfoundation.org/blog/california-issuing-state-warr...
        lotsofpulp 3y ago
        It means people pay sky high tax rates, and deal with lower quality government services, and the government sells of infrastructure like their parking meters. Also, land does not appreciate and the state is handicapped in attracting new highly profitable businesses. https://reason.com/2019/03/01/companies-should-avoid-states-with-huge/ https://reason.com/2019/03/01/companies-should-avoid-states-...
- kapp_in_life 3y ago
  For who? Certainly not for the person paying.
AlbertCory 3y ago
No, the one thing that's predictable is: no matter what they do, service will only get worse.
- callalex 3y ago
  In the transition from pre-internet to modern times, I have found my experience with both California department of motor vehicles and the tax board has improved significantly. So much less traveling to crappy offices and waiting in hours-long lines. I still wouldn’t call it great, but it has objectively improved.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    The huge increase in service has been that they let you sit on the other side of the wall, basically. Instead of telling a DMV employee what they need to hear to fill out the little computer form, now they allow you to fill out the same form, on the web, and unpaid, too!
    - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
      OK, but when I had to sit at the DMV for two hours, I wasn't getting paid for that time, either. So if the options are an unpaid 5 minutes on the computer, or an unpaid 2 hours at their office, one is clearly better for me.
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    It actually IS true that DMV and property tax payments are pretty good in CA now. However, I'm sure that's unacceptable to some folks and they'll soon crapify it.
rglover 3y ago
> The government could then save money and provide better service for menial tasks such as "what permit do I need to do such and such" Yes, but apply Murphy's Law. They could also automate something like appeals to eminent domain claims and make it impossible for you to fight. Imagine being told the family farm that's been passed down over 5 generations is now going to be claimed by the government and turned into a parking lot for a new "justice center." When you go to appeal, the hyper-efficient but devoid-of-empathy AI bot just says "sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."
toomuchtodo 3y ago
This is a fiction. You assume the government will provide better service. Instead (from a historical evidence and performance perspective), cuts will be made, service will degrade, and those who lied to champion the changes will not be held accountable. Who will be held accountable when these promises evaporate? My problem is not with innovation, it is with falsehoods and lack of accountability for those falsehoods. Edit: As PheonixPharts says in another comment: > All these jobs being "replaced by AI" are simply being eliminated with the consequences of them being eliminated ignored. Customer service jobs aren't being replaced by AI, companies, like Klarna, are just giving up on customer service and using AI to increase their perceived value rather than reducing it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39554367 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39554367 You don't need an LLM to do that. You can ignore your customers just fine without it. Cut out the performance art, go straight to zero without it. It is still mostly a powerful search engine backed by the equivalent of a knowledgeable, not a replacement for human support. If the human is not providing what is needed, that is a system failure, not a human failure. This tech augments the human, it does not replace the human.
- kbolino 3y ago
  Accountability requires power. We have stripped politicians of most of their power, leaving them fiddling with margins and fighting over petty things. "Politics is Hollywood for ugly people" they say, with a chuckle, but it's far more true than we accept. Unless and until the executive and the legislature can seriously threaten the financiers, journalists, academics, lobbyists, judges, bureaucrats, etc. again, like FDR could, you can't expect accountability. The politicians are just the faces that implement other people's decisions, and those other people don't even have elections to lose.
glitchc 3y ago
It certainly looks like that from far away, but get close enough to a real permit application, and you'll see that there are so many edge cases, and every situation is so unique, that the exception always defines the rule. I'm willing to wager that a govt. employee processing, let's say renovation permits, sees no more five applications in their entire service history that are textbook as in can be approved without any required corrections. Extend that to any other application, and you'll quickly see the value of an experienced government employee helping you navigate the bureaucracy. If you haven't yet, then you are likely very young and/or your parents have taken care of everything for you to date. And before you blame the civil servant for the byzantine rulebooks, I want to rush to remind you that those civil servants only interpret the laws/rules. They have as much hand in creating them as you or I.

candiddevmike 3y ago

Isn't that the dream though? To be overpaid and not have to work hard?

doctor_eval 3y ago
Yes, but that’s for us tech workers, not the common prole. /s
stavros 3y ago
Not if you're the employer, which, if you're the taxpayer, you are.
- throwanem 3y ago
  I think you meant 'employer'.
  - stavros 3y ago
    I did, thank you!
    - throwanem 3y ago
      Sure thing. You're still wrong on the merits, though. To pick one example, the folks who work at my local MVA ("DMV" in most states) office do not work for me, though they're paid out of my taxes and those of everyone else who earns in Maryland. They don't report to me. Nor should they, because if they did, they would also report to that freak who drives a car plastered with QAnon garbage around Perry Hall. My city councilman and my General Assembly representatives work for me, but the people employed to deliver services managed by the state and city government do not.
      - otterley 3y ago
        The point is that we as collective taxpayers don't want to overpay for government services. And that point is a good one.
        throwanem 3y ago
        Is it? Define 'overpay.'
        otterley 3y ago
        Have you never bought a snack at an airport or a theme park?
        throwanem 3y ago
        Oh, boy. Just don't bring gold-fringed flags into it, okay?
- hgomersall 3y ago
  No you're not. They're employed by the state which is managed by the politicians you elect. I presume you mean to imply that civil servants are paid by your taxes, but that's not true either if we're talking about a sovereign state - a moments consideration would show that spending must preceed taxation, which is true as a matter of accounting. Really you'd do better to note that state employees allow you to get money enabling you to pay your taxes (but that's also not a very helpful way to look at it).
  - bombcar 3y ago
    If you're trying to apply modern money theory, it only works at the federal level (in the USA), state and local governments are directly affected by taxation which must precede spending (or they have to issue warrants or bonds). This comes back to bite California every time there is a major tax revenue crunch for whatever reason.
    - candiddevmike 3y ago
      How does that work with states like IL being massively in debt due to overspending and pensions?
      - bombcar 3y ago
        If "in debt" means "they can keep issuing bonds and people are buying them" then they're fine. If it means "they cannot make payments on bonds and cannot issue new ones because nobody wants them" then the Feds will have to step in, or they'll have to liquidate state assets (including privatizing various governmental functions, selling land and leasing it back, etc), or raise taxes to balance the budget. They literally cannot print money. This cycle has already destroyed a few cities (usually the city gets swallowed by the county). There's a step where they issue "warrants" like CA did a few times: https://taxfoundation.org/blog/california-issuing-state-warrants-pay-bills/ https://taxfoundation.org/blog/california-issuing-state-warr...
      - lotsofpulp 3y ago
        It means people pay sky high tax rates, and deal with lower quality government services, and the government sells of infrastructure like their parking meters. Also, land does not appreciate and the state is handicapped in attracting new highly profitable businesses. https://reason.com/2019/03/01/companies-should-avoid-states-with-huge/ https://reason.com/2019/03/01/companies-should-avoid-states-...
kapp_in_life 3y ago
For who? Certainly not for the person paying.

AlbertCory 3y ago

No, the one thing that's predictable is: no matter what they do, service will only get worse.

callalex 3y ago
In the transition from pre-internet to modern times, I have found my experience with both California department of motor vehicles and the tax board has improved significantly. So much less traveling to crappy offices and waiting in hours-long lines. I still wouldn’t call it great, but it has objectively improved.
- bombcar 3y ago
  The huge increase in service has been that they let you sit on the other side of the wall, basically. Instead of telling a DMV employee what they need to hear to fill out the little computer form, now they allow you to fill out the same form, on the web, and unpaid, too!
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    OK, but when I had to sit at the DMV for two hours, I wasn't getting paid for that time, either. So if the options are an unpaid 5 minutes on the computer, or an unpaid 2 hours at their office, one is clearly better for me.
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  It actually IS true that DMV and property tax payments are pretty good in CA now. However, I'm sure that's unacceptable to some folks and they'll soon crapify it.

rglover 3y ago

> The government could then save money and provide better service for menial tasks such as "what permit do I need to do such and such" Yes, but apply Murphy's Law. They could also automate something like appeals to eminent domain claims and make it impossible for you to fight. Imagine being told the family farm that's been passed down over 5 generations is now going to be claimed by the government and turned into a parking lot for a new "justice center." When you go to appeal, the hyper-efficient but devoid-of-empathy AI bot just says "sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."

toomuchtodo 3y ago

This is a fiction. You assume the government will provide better service. Instead (from a historical evidence and performance perspective), cuts will be made, service will degrade, and those who lied to champion the changes will not be held accountable. Who will be held accountable when these promises evaporate? My problem is not with innovation, it is with falsehoods and lack of accountability for those falsehoods. Edit: As PheonixPharts says in another comment: > All these jobs being "replaced by AI" are simply being eliminated with the consequences of them being eliminated ignored. Customer service jobs aren't being replaced by AI, companies, like Klarna, are just giving up on customer service and using AI to increase their perceived value rather than reducing it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39554367 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39554367 You don't need an LLM to do that. You can ignore your customers just fine without it. Cut out the performance art, go straight to zero without it. It is still mostly a powerful search engine backed by the equivalent of a knowledgeable, not a replacement for human support. If the human is not providing what is needed, that is a system failure, not a human failure. This tech augments the human, it does not replace the human.

kbolino 3y ago
Accountability requires power. We have stripped politicians of most of their power, leaving them fiddling with margins and fighting over petty things. "Politics is Hollywood for ugly people" they say, with a chuckle, but it's far more true than we accept. Unless and until the executive and the legislature can seriously threaten the financiers, journalists, academics, lobbyists, judges, bureaucrats, etc. again, like FDR could, you can't expect accountability. The politicians are just the faces that implement other people's decisions, and those other people don't even have elections to lose.

glitchc 3y ago

It certainly looks like that from far away, but get close enough to a real permit application, and you'll see that there are so many edge cases, and every situation is so unique, that the exception always defines the rule. I'm willing to wager that a govt. employee processing, let's say renovation permits, sees no more five applications in their entire service history that are textbook as in can be approved without any required corrections. Extend that to any other application, and you'll quickly see the value of an experienced government employee helping you navigate the bureaucracy. If you haven't yet, then you are likely very young and/or your parents have taken care of everything for you to date. And before you blame the civil servant for the byzantine rulebooks, I want to rush to remind you that those civil servants only interpret the laws/rules. They have as much hand in creating them as you or I.