4 ms·

>> And no human is so worthless as to be replaceable with a machine. Has the author been in any factory or seen what it looks like in many factories? Robots e

>> And no human is so worthless as to be replaceable with a machine. Has the author been in any factory or seen what it looks like in many factories? Robots everywhere! Is the author a manual laborer? If not, why? Because humans evented machines!

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
naikrovek 1y ago
while I think the author chose the wrong words here, I think they have a good point. It will be very, very tempting for companies to let people go when LLMs can do everything that they envision the people doing. It is very hard to resist the cost savings that LLMs have over people. People who get sick, get married, go on vacation, have children, and sometimes just need a break, so they don't come in. LLMs always come in. LLMs always work. Many executives see LLMs as the ideal replacement for humans in information roles. That is clearly batshit insane but the numbers really lean towards this if you're someone who is distant from people who work for you. Companies would do well not to forget that companies are of people, by people, and for people. they exist solely to provide products or services to people, be it actual individuals or companies which are made up of people. If companies ditch too many people in favor of automation, they'll find fewer customers for their goods. because people won't be able to afford them, or will have no need for them. it's not like there's some huge need for LLM trainers to take up the unemployment slack. There is no replacement industry this time.
- oharapj 1y ago
  It doesn’t matter if companies ditch people or not. If AI progress continues at the current rate the world will be completely unrecognisable in 10 years. The consumer and capitalist systems are almost certainly not a part of that world and the people making AI know that
  - vouaobrasil 1y ago
    That is true. What will happen in with the world is that consumerism and capitalism will be pushed aside for direct technological construction. In this world, AI, rather than the market, optimizes.
  - wizzwizz4 1y ago
    If the people making AI knew that, then they wouldn't be trying to sell everyone on AI: they'd be keeping it for themselves (assuming selfishness). What we're seeing is exactly what you'd expect if the AI hype were, from capital's perspective, just another NFT-style grift.
  - naikrovek 1y ago
    > The consumer and capitalist systems are almost certainly not a part of that world I'm not sure how you view the world in 10 years, and I would really like to know more about what you're meaning here, and I agree that things will be bonkers in 10 years, for one reason or another, if the pace of AI progress continues.
ashton314 1y ago
You and another commenter here had about the same comment, so here's what I wrote to them to clarify: Author here. I think it is well and good to replace human jobs with automation thereby freeing them up for more creative activities. My favorite appliances are my dish washer, washing machine, dryer, and now my robot vacuum. I think automation is great! I see the problem when humans allow machines to start replacing what is intrinsically human: when you offload your creativity onto a machine, when you "communicate" via LLMs, or when you try to assuage loneliness with a computer "friend", you're missing out on vital parts of the human experience.
- vouaobrasil 1y ago
  Absolutely right. However, it's not good to replace too much manual labor, either. There is also a balance between too much and too little (i.e. not learning enough manual skills to take care of yourself). There is a balance in both the mental and physical domains. Those who have a high intellectual capacity will probably think otherwise because intellectual activities is what THEY like to do. But the truth is, some people enjoy manual labor and it's not good to completely replace them either because there is art in manual work as well.
vouaobrasil 1y ago
> Is the author a manual laborer? If not, why? Because humans evented machines! For physical labor it might make sense, but for mental labor it does not.
- jjmarr 1y ago
  There's plenty of mental skill and thought that goes into positioning yourself to move heavy things around without dying. Many of those skills are obsolete when using a forklift.
  - cootsnuck 1y ago
    A forklift is actually a great example of using technology to augment human capabilities without replacing human judgement. Treating the tool as an extension of the person...more cyborg, less automaton. I think that's a better mental model for how to implement AI in a way that drastically reduces the likelihood of causing harm or reducing quality. Unfortunately, most AI solutions, products, implementations, etc. are just defaulting to trying to completely automate and obviate the human element. I think many companies are going to be in for a rude surprise when going that route (e.g. Klarna).

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

naikrovek 1y ago

while I think the author chose the wrong words here, I think they have a good point. It will be very, very tempting for companies to let people go when LLMs can do everything that they envision the people doing. It is very hard to resist the cost savings that LLMs have over people. People who get sick, get married, go on vacation, have children, and sometimes just need a break, so they don't come in. LLMs always come in. LLMs always work. Many executives see LLMs as the ideal replacement for humans in information roles. That is clearly batshit insane but the numbers really lean towards this if you're someone who is distant from people who work for you. Companies would do well not to forget that companies are of people, by people, and for people. they exist solely to provide products or services to people, be it actual individuals or companies which are made up of people. If companies ditch too many people in favor of automation, they'll find fewer customers for their goods. because people won't be able to afford them, or will have no need for them. it's not like there's some huge need for LLM trainers to take up the unemployment slack. There is no replacement industry this time.

oharapj 1y ago
It doesn’t matter if companies ditch people or not. If AI progress continues at the current rate the world will be completely unrecognisable in 10 years. The consumer and capitalist systems are almost certainly not a part of that world and the people making AI know that
- vouaobrasil 1y ago
  That is true. What will happen in with the world is that consumerism and capitalism will be pushed aside for direct technological construction. In this world, AI, rather than the market, optimizes.
- wizzwizz4 1y ago
  If the people making AI knew that, then they wouldn't be trying to sell everyone on AI: they'd be keeping it for themselves (assuming selfishness). What we're seeing is exactly what you'd expect if the AI hype were, from capital's perspective, just another NFT-style grift.
- naikrovek 1y ago
  > The consumer and capitalist systems are almost certainly not a part of that world I'm not sure how you view the world in 10 years, and I would really like to know more about what you're meaning here, and I agree that things will be bonkers in 10 years, for one reason or another, if the pace of AI progress continues.

ashton314 1y ago

You and another commenter here had about the same comment, so here's what I wrote to them to clarify: Author here. I think it is well and good to replace human jobs with automation thereby freeing them up for more creative activities. My favorite appliances are my dish washer, washing machine, dryer, and now my robot vacuum. I think automation is great! I see the problem when humans allow machines to start replacing what is intrinsically human: when you offload your creativity onto a machine, when you "communicate" via LLMs, or when you try to assuage loneliness with a computer "friend", you're missing out on vital parts of the human experience.

vouaobrasil 1y ago
Absolutely right. However, it's not good to replace too much manual labor, either. There is also a balance between too much and too little (i.e. not learning enough manual skills to take care of yourself). There is a balance in both the mental and physical domains. Those who have a high intellectual capacity will probably think otherwise because intellectual activities is what THEY like to do. But the truth is, some people enjoy manual labor and it's not good to completely replace them either because there is art in manual work as well.

vouaobrasil 1y ago

> Is the author a manual laborer? If not, why? Because humans evented machines! For physical labor it might make sense, but for mental labor it does not.

jjmarr 1y ago
There's plenty of mental skill and thought that goes into positioning yourself to move heavy things around without dying. Many of those skills are obsolete when using a forklift.
- cootsnuck 1y ago
  A forklift is actually a great example of using technology to augment human capabilities without replacing human judgement. Treating the tool as an extension of the person...more cyborg, less automaton. I think that's a better mental model for how to implement AI in a way that drastically reduces the likelihood of causing harm or reducing quality. Unfortunately, most AI solutions, products, implementations, etc. are just defaulting to trying to completely automate and obviate the human element. I think many companies are going to be in for a rude surprise when going that route (e.g. Klarna).