6 ms·

Find a way to make sure workers get the value of ai labor instead of bosses and the workers will like it better. If the result is "you do the same work but mana

Find a way to make sure workers get the value of ai labor instead of bosses and the workers will like it better. If the result is "you do the same work but managers want everything in 20% of the time" why would anyone be happy?

atleastoptimal 1y ago
I agree that if there are productivity gains that everyone should benefit, but the only thing that would allow this to happen are systems and incentive structures that allow that to happen. A manager's job is to increase revenue and cut costs, that's how they get their job, how they keep their job, and how they are promoted. People very rarely get free benefits outside the range of what the incentive structures they exist in allow them to.
- ozgrakkurt 1y ago
  And people don’t like this. Something being logical doesn’t mean people have to accept it. Also AI has been basically useless every time I tried it except converting some struct definitions across languages or similar tasks, it seems very unlikely that it would boost productivity by more than 10% let alone 400%.
  - atleastoptimal 1y ago
    What AI coding tools/models have you been using?
    - spc476 1y ago
      Let me guess ... they're holding it wrong, and the model they're using is older than 20 minutes.
      - atleastoptimal 1y ago
        You’re assuming how i would respond before i even respond. Please allow inquiries to happen naturally without polluting the thread with meritless cynicism.
        jcranmer 1y ago
        With all due respect, with a response like "What AI coding tools/models have you been using?" to a complaint that AI tools just don't seem to be effective, what difference does a reply to that even make? If your experience makes you believe that certain tools are particularly good--or particularly bad--for the tasks at hand, you can just volunteer those specifics. FWIW, my own experiences with AI have ranged from mediocre to downright abysmal. And, no, I don't know which models the tools were using. I'm rather annoyed that it seems to be impossible to express a negative opinion about the value of AI without having to have a thoroughly documented experiment that inevitably invites the response that obviously some parameter was chosen incorrectly, while the people claiming how good it is get to be all offended when someone asks them to maybe show their work a little bit.
        atleastoptimal 1y ago
        Some people complain about AI but are using the free version of ChatGPT. Others are using the best models without a middleman system but still see faults, and I think it’s valuable to inquire about which domains they see no value in AI from. There are too many people saying “I tried AI and it didn’t work at all” without clarifying what models, what tools, what they asked it to do, etc. Without that context it’s hard to gauge the value of any value judgement on AI. It’s like saying “I drove a car and it was horrible, cars suck” without clarifying what car, the age, the make, how much experience that person had driving, etc. Of course its more difficult to provide specifics than just say it was good or bad, but there is little value in claims that AI is altogether bad when you don’t offer any details about what it is specifically bad at and how.
        jcranmer 1y ago
        > It’s like saying “I drove a car and it was horrible, cars suck” without clarifying what car, the age, the make, how much experience that person had driving, etc. That's an interesting comparison. That kind of statement can be reasonably inferred to be made by someone just learning to drive who doesn't like the experience of driving. And if I were a motorhead trying to convert that person to like driving, my first questions wouldn't be those questions, trying to interrogate them on their exact scenario to invalidate their results, but instead to question what aspect of driving they don't like to see if I could work out a fix for them that would meaningfully change their experience (and not being a motorhead, the only thing I can think of is maybe automatic versus manual transmission). > there is little value in claims that AI is altogether bad when you don’t offer any details about what it is specifically bad at and how. Also, do remember that this holds true when you s/bad/good/g.
- UncleMeat 1y ago
  > I agree that if there are productivity gains that everyone should benefit And if they don't, then you'd understand the anger surely. You can't say "well obviously everybody should benefit" and then also scold the people who are mad that everybody isn't benefiting.
  - atleastoptimal 1y ago
    i’m not scolding anyone who is mad that not everyone is benefitting
    - UncleMeat 1y ago
      What are you doing then?
    - queenkjuul 1y ago
      I mean you certainly fooled us all in that front
pr3d4t0ralien 1y ago
[dead]
pabs3 1y ago
Start a worker-owned tech co-op? Not much point though, since people are going to pay AI to write their code instead, and so the market for consultants will dry up. Probably lots of market space for fixing up broken AI code though :)
- entropicdrifter 1y ago
  Don't you think consultants get hired to fix up code? If so, why would their market dry up? If anything, I would expect it to explode
  - pabs3 1y ago
    That was what I said in my last sentence. The market that will dry up is writing code in the first place.
safety1st 1y ago
[flagged]
- photonthug 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - safety1st 1y ago
    Look this isn't a forum for general advocacy of Marxist political thought, it just isn't. That's off topic. Whereas it IS a forum for discussing the biggest tech court case of the century. The site was not established to give equal time to all political ideologies in all threads, which is what you seem to be implying. This is all in the Hacker News guidelines. Let me paste the relevant part for you since you don't seem to know about it: Hacker News Guidelines What to Submit On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
    - guappa 1y ago
      Hackers find communism interesting :)
    - photonthug 1y ago
      About those rules. Any high-profile court case is by definition crime/politics, and all over TV news. Have you recently mentioned the name of any famous person(s) in your comments, offering opinions and critiques perhaps? But that's another way of saying "celebrities". So I'd say you're unambiguously failing on 4 of these criteria. In terms of forming teams and bitching about the refs decisions, not much difference between court-cases and sports either, neither are big on inspiring curiosity. But hey.. rules are for other people right boss? And stop telling people to "look". You look. Because listen, I know that phrases like this one are well-loved by a certain type of person. Shows who's the adult in the room, and also frightens subordinates into silence, right? But understand me now when I say that it's much too transparent when used too often. Realize that there are other adults in the room, and when you toss out too many imperatives too fast then it's easy to see how much you want to control people as well as the topics under discussion.

atleastoptimal 1y ago

I agree that if there are productivity gains that everyone should benefit, but the only thing that would allow this to happen are systems and incentive structures that allow that to happen. A manager's job is to increase revenue and cut costs, that's how they get their job, how they keep their job, and how they are promoted. People very rarely get free benefits outside the range of what the incentive structures they exist in allow them to.

ozgrakkurt 1y ago
And people don’t like this. Something being logical doesn’t mean people have to accept it. Also AI has been basically useless every time I tried it except converting some struct definitions across languages or similar tasks, it seems very unlikely that it would boost productivity by more than 10% let alone 400%.
- atleastoptimal 1y ago
  What AI coding tools/models have you been using?
  - spc476 1y ago
    Let me guess ... they're holding it wrong, and the model they're using is older than 20 minutes.
    - atleastoptimal 1y ago
      You’re assuming how i would respond before i even respond. Please allow inquiries to happen naturally without polluting the thread with meritless cynicism.
      - jcranmer 1y ago
        With all due respect, with a response like "What AI coding tools/models have you been using?" to a complaint that AI tools just don't seem to be effective, what difference does a reply to that even make? If your experience makes you believe that certain tools are particularly good--or particularly bad--for the tasks at hand, you can just volunteer those specifics. FWIW, my own experiences with AI have ranged from mediocre to downright abysmal. And, no, I don't know which models the tools were using. I'm rather annoyed that it seems to be impossible to express a negative opinion about the value of AI without having to have a thoroughly documented experiment that inevitably invites the response that obviously some parameter was chosen incorrectly, while the people claiming how good it is get to be all offended when someone asks them to maybe show their work a little bit.
        atleastoptimal 1y ago
        Some people complain about AI but are using the free version of ChatGPT. Others are using the best models without a middleman system but still see faults, and I think it’s valuable to inquire about which domains they see no value in AI from. There are too many people saying “I tried AI and it didn’t work at all” without clarifying what models, what tools, what they asked it to do, etc. Without that context it’s hard to gauge the value of any value judgement on AI. It’s like saying “I drove a car and it was horrible, cars suck” without clarifying what car, the age, the make, how much experience that person had driving, etc. Of course its more difficult to provide specifics than just say it was good or bad, but there is little value in claims that AI is altogether bad when you don’t offer any details about what it is specifically bad at and how.
        jcranmer 1y ago
        > It’s like saying “I drove a car and it was horrible, cars suck” without clarifying what car, the age, the make, how much experience that person had driving, etc. That's an interesting comparison. That kind of statement can be reasonably inferred to be made by someone just learning to drive who doesn't like the experience of driving. And if I were a motorhead trying to convert that person to like driving, my first questions wouldn't be those questions, trying to interrogate them on their exact scenario to invalidate their results, but instead to question what aspect of driving they don't like to see if I could work out a fix for them that would meaningfully change their experience (and not being a motorhead, the only thing I can think of is maybe automatic versus manual transmission). > there is little value in claims that AI is altogether bad when you don’t offer any details about what it is specifically bad at and how. Also, do remember that this holds true when you s/bad/good/g.
UncleMeat 1y ago
> I agree that if there are productivity gains that everyone should benefit And if they don't, then you'd understand the anger surely. You can't say "well obviously everybody should benefit" and then also scold the people who are mad that everybody isn't benefiting.
- atleastoptimal 1y ago
  i’m not scolding anyone who is mad that not everyone is benefitting
  - UncleMeat 1y ago
    What are you doing then?
  - queenkjuul 1y ago
    I mean you certainly fooled us all in that front

pr3d4t0ralien 1y ago

[dead]

pabs3 1y ago

Start a worker-owned tech co-op? Not much point though, since people are going to pay AI to write their code instead, and so the market for consultants will dry up. Probably lots of market space for fixing up broken AI code though :)

entropicdrifter 1y ago
Don't you think consultants get hired to fix up code? If so, why would their market dry up? If anything, I would expect it to explode
- pabs3 1y ago
  That was what I said in my last sentence. The market that will dry up is writing code in the first place.

safety1st 1y ago

[flagged]

photonthug 1y ago
[flagged]
- safety1st 1y ago
  Look this isn't a forum for general advocacy of Marxist political thought, it just isn't. That's off topic. Whereas it IS a forum for discussing the biggest tech court case of the century. The site was not established to give equal time to all political ideologies in all threads, which is what you seem to be implying. This is all in the Hacker News guidelines. Let me paste the relevant part for you since you don't seem to know about it: Hacker News Guidelines What to Submit On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
  - guappa 1y ago
    Hackers find communism interesting :)
  - photonthug 1y ago
    About those rules. Any high-profile court case is by definition crime/politics, and all over TV news. Have you recently mentioned the name of any famous person(s) in your comments, offering opinions and critiques perhaps? But that's another way of saying "celebrities". So I'd say you're unambiguously failing on 4 of these criteria. In terms of forming teams and bitching about the refs decisions, not much difference between court-cases and sports either, neither are big on inspiring curiosity. But hey.. rules are for other people right boss? And stop telling people to "look". You look. Because listen, I know that phrases like this one are well-loved by a certain type of person. Shows who's the adult in the room, and also frightens subordinates into silence, right? But understand me now when I say that it's much too transparent when used too often. Realize that there are other adults in the room, and when you toss out too many imperatives too fast then it's easy to see how much you want to control people as well as the topics under discussion.