18 ms·
Replacement.ai
- itsme0000 11mo agoLook AI seems important now, but firearms ultimately are the real efficiency multiplier.
- pixelready 11mo agoIf only we could somehow equip the AI with firearms… perhaps we could build some sort of mobile exoskeleton platform.
- itsme0000 11mo agoYeah but job skills can be replicated instantly, but major organs that’s where the moneys at.
- _el1s7 11mo agoI'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.
- philmont 11mo agoGee AI { } if (Steal) { then Lie; then Cloud; then Money; } else { Fail; then Die; } { }
- jdthedisciple 11mo agosatire i suppose
- ionwake 11mo agoIronically LLM created meta satire
- amelius 11mo agoSomeone has to tell the story that BigTech wants to keep hidden from us until it is too late for us to do anything about it.
- sorokod 11mo agoWhich part?
- lijok 11mo agoOnly a bit https://businesscloud.co.uk/news/artisan-ai-stop-hiring-humans-ads-cause-outrage-in-london/ https://businesscloud.co.uk/news/artisan-ai-stop-hiring-huma...
- stuartjohnson12 11mo agoThis isn't real! This is a phantom of the attention economy! AI SDR companies are all very similar and the product doesn't really work so there's too much capital in a small market. The winning strategy is to quickly grab as many eyeballs as possible. 11x got dunked because of revenue manipulation in pursuit of more eyeballs, and this is also shenanigans in pursuit of more eyeballs. People are afraid AI will replace all jobs so saying you're replacing all jobs with AI evokes the consensus fear response and makes people emotionally engage with your marketing. The meme exists because people are afraid of the meme.
- brap 11mo agohttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/The_Unrestrained_Demon_%28anti-electricity_cartoon%29_02.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/The_Unre...
- portaouflop 11mo agoEverything is exactly the same!!11
- lijok 11mo agoThe difference being that we knew how to manage it, so it was actual hysteria borne from ignorance
- henry2023 11mo agoAnother difference is that their proponents were not hyping their valuations in the hypothetical of mass unemployment.
- Topfi 11mo agoReminds me of an ARG [0] I made in the early days of LLM hype. Honestly had three mails asking whether they could invest. Likely scams if we are honest, just some automated crawlers, but found it funny nonetheless. [0] https://ethical-ai.eu https://ethical-ai.eu
- jonstewart 11mo agoHumbert as the product name for families is inspired. 10/10.
- sincerely 11mo agoI 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
- poszlem 11mo agoNot really, because this time it's not machine to do something that people used to do, but a machine to do anything and everything that people used to do.
- bamboozled 11mo agoEnjoy eating a bowl of pasta ?
- aabhay 11mo agoHistory is full of technology doing things that go beyond human possibility as well. Think of microscopes, guns, space shuttles. There has been technology that explicitly replaces human labor but that is not at all the whole story.
- darthoctopus 11mo agothat is the point of Luddism! the original Luddite movement was not ipso facto opposed to progress, but rather to the societal harm caused by society-scale economic obsolescence. the entire history of technology is also powerful business interests smearing this movement as being intrinsically anti-progress, rather than directly addressing these concerns…
- scotty79 11mo agoSomehow modern Luddite messaging doesn't communicate that clearly either. Instead of "where's my fair share of AI benefits?" we hear "AI is evil, pls don't replace us".
- 11mo ago
- sebastianconcpt 11mo agoThe dream solution for every problem that the true socialist agenda finds while implementing its political project. Comrades, we can now automate a neo KGB and auto garbage-collect contra-revolutionaries in mass with soviet efficiency!
- indigo945 11mo agoLibertarians accusing socialists of allegedly wanting to do what capitalists are demonstrably already doing will never cease to be good entertainment.
- beeflet 11mo agoWe don't propose that the capitalists are the solution, but rather that the solution lies in a balance of powers through the market. The communist solution to everything is to roll everything into a one-world monopoly. That concentration of power is exactly what we are trying to prevent. Feudalism, Corporatism, and Communism converge on the same point in the space of poltics. AI will destroy the labor market as a means of wealth distribution but still some solution is better than nothing. Suggesting that socialism is the solution to mass automation is like suggesting the solution to a burning house is to pour gasoline on it.
- defgeneric 11mo agoNote we currently live in the most surveilled state in history.
- photonthug 11mo agoIt's actually kinda noteworthy that corporations don't talk like this (yet). Masks are off lately in political discourse, where we're all in on crass flexing on the powerless, the othering, cruelty, humiliation. How long before CEOs are openly talking about workers in the same ways that certain politicians talk about ${out_group}? If you're b2b with nothing consumer-facing to boycott, may as well say what you really think in a climate where it can't hurt and might help. The worst are filled with passionate intensity, something something rough beast etc.
- malfist 11mo agoProbably depends on the 2028 election
- ameliaquining 11mo agoWhat's to be gained from talking like this in public as a corporate figure? In politics it helps shore up the support of voters who might not otherwise trust that you'll side with them against the people you're demeaning; there's no corporate analogy to this.
- _cenw 11mo agoThe visible presence or absence of anything including the words "diversity" "equity" "inclusion" (or "woman" apparently) was and is the same heging. At least with a politician you can sometimes believe it, whereas capitalism's spine is infinitely flexible.
- photonthug 11mo ago> What's to be gained from talking like this in public as a corporate figure? Diving into the game theory of a 4-player setup with executives/investors/customers/workers is tempting here but I'll take a different approach. People who actually face consequences have trouble understanding how the "it might help, it can't hurt!" corporate strategy can justify almost any kind of madness. Especially when the leaders are morons that somehow have zero ideas, yet almost infinite power. That's how/why Volkswagen was running slave plantations in Brazil as late as 1986, and yet it takes 40 years to even try to slap them on the wrist.[1] A manufacturing company that decided to run FARMS in the amazon?, with slaves??, for a decade??? One could easily ask, what is to be gained by doing crimes against humanity for a sketchy, illegal, and unethical business plan that's not even related to their core competency? Power has it's own logic, but it doesn't look like normal rationality because it has a different kind of relationship with cause-and-effect. Overall it's just a really good time to re-evaluate whether corporations and leaders deserve our charitable assumptions about their intentions and ethics. [1] https://reporterbrasil.org.br/2025/05/why-is-volkswagen-accused-of-slave-labor-in-the-amazon/ https://reporterbrasil.org.br/2025/05/why-is-volkswagen-accu...
- chausen 11mo agoThe CEO spending his time “Practicing expressions” cracked me up.
- zb3 11mo agoIf I could just do nothing because machines would do all the work then it's fine for me. But of course it won't work this way, only the owners of the capital will be on the receiving side, others will not be able to acquire that capital.
- gnfargbl 11mo agoThe hypothesized superintelligent AI will be essentially immortal. If it destroys us, it will be entirely alone in the known Universe, forever. That thought should terrify it enough to keep us around... even if only in the sense that I keep cats.
- scotty79 11mo agoLife is a solution of an interesting problem. I'm hoping AI will keep us as a unique example of such solution.
- itsnowandnever 11mo agoI think there's a theory out there that if something can't die, it's more of a "library" than "immortal"... because being born and dying (and the fact that you sharing resources with another living thing is possibly you sharing/shortening your one finite life with another) is so essential for any social bonding. so a machine that has obtained all the knowledge of the universe and enabled to act upon that knowledge is still just a library with controllers attached (no more sophisticated of a concept than a thermostat) in the end, if synthetic super intelligence results in the end of mankind, it'll be because a human programmed it to do so. more of a computer virus than a malevolent synthetic alien entity. a digital nuclear bomb.
- nyrp 11mo ago> That thought should terrify it assuming it can be terrified
- theptip 11mo agoThis premise is a bit silly. If the machine god gets bored it can just create new life in its own image.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- bamboozled 11mo agoHow do you know that’s not what we are ? It all gets quite religious / physical philosophical very quickly. Almost like we’re creating a new techno religion by “realizing god” through machines.
- allturtles 11mo agoThis is a brilliant piece of satire. "A Modest Proposal" for the AI age. The leader bios are particularly priceless. "While working for 12 years as the Director of HR for a multinational, Faith realized that firing people gave her an almost-spiritual high. Out of the office, Faith coaches a little league softball team and looks after her sick mother - obligations she looks forward to being free of!"
- username223 11mo ago"I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee, or a ragout." Would Sam Altman even understand the original, or would he just wander ignorantly into the kitchen and fling some salt at it (https://www.ft.com/content/b1804820-c74b-4d37-b112-1df882629541 https://www.ft.com/content/b1804820-c74b-4d37-b112-1df882629...)? I'm not optimistic about our modern oligarchs.
- oxag3n 11mo agoWhy did I read that FT article start to finish? Seems like a waste of time, but at the same time the feelings were similar to looking Hannibal Lecter in the kitchen scene.
- bilekas 11mo ago> This is a brilliant piece of satire. "A Modest Proposal" for the AI age. There's some truth in all satire though. I'm just shocked YC hasn't nuked the link from the front page.
- overfeed 11mo agoEveryone is way above average here on HN, and will be thinking "The article speaks about every other idiot I work with - my genius is singular; I'm too valuable to my employer and irreplaceable. I'll be the one wrangling the AI that replaces my colleagues, while they figure out welfare"
- Galus 11mo agohow can I invest?
- Galus 11mo agoHow can I invest?
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- witnessme 11mo agoWhy is featured as #1 on the frontpage. I get it, nice piece of satire and a bit controversial. But it is not productive at all.
- kachapopopow 11mo agobecause at this point we need a little bit of comedy in our lives to keep ourselves sane.
- cindyllm 11mo ago[dead]
- chinathrow 11mo agoIt's a Sunday.
- nhaehnle 11mo agoIf you'll look at the Guidelines for HN linked at the bottom of the page, you'll note that whether a submission is productive is not a criterion. You could perhaps make an argument that among the flood of AI-related submissions, this one doesn't particularly move the needle on intellectual curiosity. Although satire is generally a good way to allow for some reflection on a serious topic, and I don't recall seeing AI-related satire here in a while.
- state_less 11mo agoAt least we can be assured our capitalistic system will distribute the wealth to those who most deserve it.
- icar 11mo agoYou missed this: /s
- BriggyDwiggs42 11mo agoHe was clearly joking
- moffkalast 11mo ago> 97% of people hate their job. But we're putting an end to all this misery. Finally a company that's out to do some good in the world.
- jb1991 11mo agoIt’s funny… because it’s true
- rvitorper 11mo agoYes
- am17an 11mo agoHumbert is a bit on the nose, for those who get the Lolita reference.
- hmokiguess 11mo agowhat if we are already the replacement AI? —- never let them know
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- nisten 11mo agoI'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 microdosed on meth? No. I just wouldn't do business with them, they don't look like trustworthy brand to me. Edit: They got me with the joke, being in this field there are people that do actually talk like that, both startups and established executives alike. I.e. Artisan ads in billboards saying STOP HIRING HUMANS and another new york company I think pushing newspaper ads for complete replacement. Also if you're up with the latest engineering in agentic scaffolding work this type of thing is no joke.
- jckahn 11mo agoIt's a joke website
- alterom 11mo ago>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 with the joke, being in this field there are people that do actually talk like that, both startups and established executives alike. And what's your conclusion from that?
- Loughla 11mo agoThat's. . . That's not great.
- game_the0ry 11mo ago> "Humans no longer necessary." > "Stupid. Smelly. Squishy." > "While working for 12 years as the Director of HR for a multinational, Faith realized that firing people gave her an almost-spiritual high." I love the marketing here. Top notch shit posting. But besides that, no idea what this company does and it just comes off like another wannabe Roy Lee styled "be controversial and build an audience before you even have a product" type company. That being said, still a good case study of shock marketing. It made it to the top link on HN after all. Edit: its satire, I got got :(
- simultsop 11mo agoI don't believe making it top link on HN is successful marketing.
- Loughla 11mo agoIs satire. Not a real company. Follow the links for support (or rather reserve space in the bunker) There's a contact form to let representatives know the dangers of ai
- senectus1 11mo agoso, is someone going to tell the webscraping AI's out there that this site is satire? Does AI even understand satire?
- overgard 11mo agoIt's satire.
- overgard 11mo agoI think this is clever satire, but slightly blunted by the fact that the tech CEO's haven't been that far off from actually saying this stuff. I'm especially disgusted with Sam Altman and Darius Amodei, who for a long time were hyping up the "fear" they felt for their own creations. Of course, they weren't doing this to slow down or approach things in a more responsible way, they were talking like that because they knew creating fear would bring in more investment and more publicity. Even when they called for "regulation", it was generally misleading and mostly to help them create a barrier to entry in the industry. I think now that the consensus among the experts is that AGI is probably a while off (like a decade), we have a new danger now. When we do start to get systems we should actually worry about, we're going to a have a major boy-who-cried-wolf problem. It's going to be hard to get these things under proper control when people start to have the feeling of "yeah we heard this all before"
- xigoi 11mo ago> I think this is clever satire, but slightly blunted by the fact that the tech CEO's haven't been that far off from actually saying this stuff. That’s what makes it good satire.
- TechSquidTV 11mo agoPersonal 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 not to stifle innovation by banning AI but by preparing society to move forward.
- philjackson 11mo ago> This is what government is for They're busy selling watches whilst people can still afford them thanks to having jobs.
- wahnfrieden 11mo agoIt'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.
- dfilppi 11mo ago[dead]
- yoyohello13 11mo agoI 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.
- iwontberude 11mo ago
- somewhatrandom9 11mo agohttps://replacement.ai/safety https://replacement.ai/safety
- khaledh 11mo agoThe 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.
- eterm 11mo agoMY 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?
- federiconafria 11mo agoI don't think that's an AI problem, we've had unnecessary software everywhere for a while now. AI just makes it worse.
- eterm 11mo agoIn this case the featre isn't unnecessary and would serve a useful purpose if it were just a query. I wouldn't object to AI writing that feature to get it out quickly. I'm not anti-AI entirely. However, someone has taken a useful feature and has made it worse to shoe-horn in copilot interaction. Clicking this button also had a side-effect of an email from Github telling me about all the things I could ask copilot about. The silver lining is that email linked to copilot settings, where I could turn it off entirely. https://github.com/settings/copilot/features https://github.com/settings/copilot/features AI is incredibly powerful, especially for code-generation. But It's terrible ( at current speeds ) for being the main interface into an application. Human-Computer interaction benefits hugely from two things: - Speed - Predictability This is why some people prefer a commandline, and why some people can produce what looks like magic with excel. These applications are predictable and fast. A chat-bot delivers neither. There's no opportunity to build up muscle-memory with a lack of predictability, and the slowness of copilot makes interaction just feel bad.
- takie2 11mo agoi don't know when they decided that anti-social personality disorder is a virtue.
- lateforwork 11mo agoYou don't need money. What you need is wealth. I am going to leave it to PG to explain the difference [1]: Wealth is not money. Wealth is stuff we want: food, clothes, houses, cars, gadgets, travel to interesting places, and so on. You can have wealth without having money. If you had a magic machine that could on command make you a car or cook you dinner or do your laundry, or do anything else you wanted, you wouldn't need money. Whereas if you were in the middle of Antarctica, where there is nothing to buy, it wouldn't matter how much money you had. AI & robots will generate wealth at unprecedented scale. In the future, you won't have a job nor have any money, but you will be fabulously wealthy! [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html
- mfro 11mo agoMaybe it’s time we all started taking Trekonomics seriously.
- steve_adams_86 11mo agoMy main concerns: 1. When such wealth is possible through autonomous means, how can the earth survive such unprecedented demands on its natural resources? 2. Should I believe that someone with more wealth (and as such, more power) than I have would not use that power to overwhelm me? Isn't my demand on resources only going to get in their way? Why would they allow me to draw on resources as well? 3. It seems like the answer to both of these concerns lies in government, but no government I'm aware of has really begun to answer these questions. Worse yet, what if governments disagree on how to implement these strategies in a global economy? Competition could become an intractable drain on the earth and humans' resources. Essentially, it opens up the possibility of war at incalculable scales.
- lateforwork 11mo ago> someone with more wealth Well in trekonomics [1], citizens are equal in terms of material wealth because scarcity has been eliminated. Wealth, in the conventional sense, does not exist; instead, the "wealth" that matters is human capital—skills, abilities, reputation, and status. The reward in this society comes not from accumulation of material goods but from intangible rewards such as honor, glory, intellectual achievement, and social esteem. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trekonomics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trekonomics
- garganzol 11mo agoIt seems that some tech people are prone to ludditism. No wonders here, AI is sharper and brighter than most tech workers usually are. Instead of facing the new reality, some people start to talk about the bubbles, AI being sloppy, etc. Which is not generally true; mostly it's the users' psychological projection of their own traits and the resulting fear-induced smear campaigns. The phenomenon is well described in psychology books. Seminal works of Carl Jung worth a ton nowadays.
- a3w 11mo agoAt least us Luddites are not losing their jobs to AGI, yet.
- garganzol 11mo agoRickshaws protesting against motorized vehicles instead of learning to drive them.
- steve_adams_86 11mo agoWhen people mention the Luddites, they almost always do so incorrectly as you have here. Luddites weren't afraid of technology because it was better than them. In fact, it was worse. There was no projection. The phenomenon you're describing here was not a Luddite phenomenon. They were concerned about how machines would disrupt employment, wages, product quality, work autonomy, power imbalances, and working conditions. We should be, too. It's also more nuanced than you seem to think. Having the work we do be replaced by machines has significant implications about human purpose, identity, and how we fit into our societies. It isn't so much a fear of being replaced or made redundant by machines specifically; it's about who we are, what we do, and what that means for other human beings. How do I belong? How do I make my community a better place? How do I build wealth for the people I love? Who cares how good the machine is. Humans want to be good at things because it's rewarding and—up until very recently—was a uniquely human capability that allowed us to build civilization itself. When machines take that away, what's left? What should we be good at when a skill may be irrelevant today or in a decade or who knows when? Someone with a software brain might immediately think "This is simply another abstraction; use the abstraction to build wealth just as you used other skills and abilities to do so before", and sure... That's what people will try to do, just as we have over the last several hundred years as new technologies have emerged. But these most recent technologies, and the ones on the horizon, seem to threaten a loss of autonomy and a kind of wealth disparity we've never seen before. The race to amass compute and manufacturing capacity among billionaires is a uniquely concerning threat to virtually everyone, in my opinion. We should remember the Luddites differently, read some history, and reconsider our next steps and how we engage with and regulate autonomous systems.
- constantcrying 11mo ago[flagged]
- yapyap 11mo agoThis website actually casts a lot of belief in AI and it’s possible applications.
- andai 11mo agohttps://replacement.ai/complaints https://replacement.ai/complaints At the bottom of this page, there is a form you can fill out. This website says they will contact your local representative on your behalf. (And forward you any reply.) Here's the auto-generated message: I am a constituent living in [state] with urgent concerns about the lack of guardrails surrounding advanced AI technologies. It is imperative that we act decisively to establish strong protections that safeguard families, communities, and our children from potential harms associated with these rapidly evolving systems. As companies continue to release increasingly powerful AI systems without meaningful oversight, we cannot rely on them to police themselves, especially when the stakes are so high. While AI has the potential to do remarkable things, it also poses significant risks, including the manipulation of children, the development of bioweapons, the creation of deepfakes, and the threat of widespread unemployment. I urge you to enact strong federal guardrails for advanced AI that protect families, communities, and children. Additionally, please do not preempt or block states from adopting strong AI protections that may be necessary for their residents. Thank you for your time. [name] New York
- riazrizvi 11mo agoOh, too bad. I initially shared it on LinkedIn but deleted it once I saw this. I’m all for establishing in the mind of the commons, that displacing humans from the economy is inane, and to see the open dialogue on the subject. I’m not up for some little team to try to control things.
- levitate 11mo agoTo me it seems like contacting your local representative is actually pretty in line with your goal of "establishing in the mind of the commons". I'm not sure what the little team is that you think will be controlling everything.
- Atreiden 11mo agoWhat you call "some little team" others might call grassroots politics. And it's the alternative to top-down partisan politics. Ideas are nice, and important, but there needs to be an action vector for those ideas to have practical value.
- everdrive 11mo ago[flagged]
- hasmolo 11mo agolook it's a straw man!
- mlyle 11mo agoBut it's not, really. Machines doing stuff instead of humans is great as long as it serves some kind of human purpose. If it lets humans do more human things as a result and have purpose, great. If it supplants things humans value, in the name of some kind of efficiency that isn't serving very many of us at all, that's not so great.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- SJC_Hacker 11mo agoIt does serve a human purpose, for the ownership class, not for the laborers
- pessimizer 11mo agoFirst I've heard that wives aren't human.
- hasmolo 11mo agosure, but no one is making love to their wife so they can feed and house their family. work is not something most people do for pleasure, it is forced on them. this is a clear misrepresentation to frame the argument as stupid, the literal definition of a straw man argument.
- rapatel0 11mo agoIf robots are a better partner, then maybe your are not that great a partner...
- SoulMan 11mo agoWas this written on 2025-20-29?
- dfilppi 11mo ago[dead]
- dataviz1000 11mo agoY'all pessimistic! This has been going on since the beginning of time. "To be or not to be? ... Not a whit, we defy augury; there's a special providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now, 'tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come the readiness is all. Since no man knows aught of what he leaves, what is't to leave betimes? Let be." -- Hamlet In the end it will be our humility that will redeem us as it has always been, have some faith the robots are not going to be that bad.
- rcarmo 11mo agoTheir stock ticker is going to be REPL, I bet.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- SubiculumCode 11mo agoThe AI/Robot Endgame: To replace us as consumers
- rubing 11mo ago[dead]
- alexpotato 11mo agoMy concern is this: There is an intersection of certain industries and a particular demographic where adapting/retraining will be either very difficult or impossible. Case in point: - car factory town in Michigan - factory shuts down - nursing school opens in the town - they open a hospital - everyone thinks "Great! We can hire nurses from the school for the hospital" - hospital says "Yeah, but we want experienced nurses, not recent graduates" - people also say "So the factory workers can go to nursing school and get jobs somewhere else!" - nursing school says "Uhm, people with 30 years of working on an assembly line are not necessarily the type of folks who make good nurses..." Eventually, the town will adapt and market forces will balance out. But what about those folks who made rational decisions about their career path and that path suddenly gets wiped away?
- brainwad 11mo agoYou win some, you lose some. When you say they made a rational choice, that implies they knew there was a chance of this outcome and they thought the gamble was worth it. We can't bail out every losing gambler, without banning gambling. The auto workers should leave town to find a suitable job, selling their homes to the incoming healthcare workers.
- layer8 11mo agoAt first I thought the Sam Altman quote is a joke, but it’s actually real: https://archive.ph/gwdZ0 https://archive.ph/gwdZ0
- arisAlexis 11mo agoit's real and people were confused and didn't get it either. the authors of the website are some of them.
- layer8 11mo agoYou could illuminate us and elucidate the correct understanding.
- arisAlexis 11mo agoIts just the reality. Ai has a big existential risk but also can drive innovation and the economy. Not very complicated. If you want to demonize Sam you can have 1000 other interpretations
- monooso 11mo agoSuch as "I'm actively contributing to something which I think will bring about the end of all human life but it's okay because we're making bank." That sort of thing?
- layer8 11mo agoOkay, that's the obvious meaning of the quote. How did people not "get" it? Or are you simply alluding to that they disagree with it?
- arisAlexis 11mo agoIt's a fact. They disagree about the intentions of saying it or they cannot grasp the mean.
- 11mo ago
- s4i 11mo agoThe fact that people don’t realize this is satire is the most scariest part.
- kwar13 11mo agoAgriculture used to be more than 50% of ALL employment in the USA. Now it's barely 2%. Ever wondered why? I understand the spirit of this, but most of this alarmism is misguided in my view.
- timeon 11mo agoAmericans used to be not fat. Ever wondered why?
- para_parolu 11mo agoNo cheap sugar?
- abeppu 11mo ago... but also increasingly sedentary lives, in part related to the kinds of things we do all day?
- vntok 11mo agoNo, most countries have followed this trend as well and don't have nearly the same obesity prevalence increase. It's preprocessed food and sugar intake in general that are particularly bad in the US.
- cloverich 11mo agoIt took me a long time to come around to simplifying it all to sugar. Its not the only reason of course but my mind now thinks: There are other countries like ours, except not everyone is fat. Sugar bypasses our normal satiety - you can put dessert and sugary drinks on top of a regular diet, easier than you can a second or third serving of the entree. Sugar is cheap and an easy way to make money in the food business. And we have sugar factories galore selling candy disguised as coffee. Add one coke a day to a balanced diet, and you add 5-10lb of fat to a person per year. My bias is now simply, its the sugar. No not only. But far and away the number one culrpit.
- 1970-01-01 11mo agoI have still not seen, firsthand, someone lose their job to "AI". Parts and pieces, sure. But when the entire Venn diagram of 'this job' is laid out, it requires a cerebellum connection at some point. A vivid picture of someone's job being totally dissolved to AI is missing.
- layer8 11mo agoI know translators that have. Not because there’s nothing left to do for humans in quality translation, but because demand and compensation dropped so much that you can’t make a living from it anymore.
- 1970-01-01 11mo agoThis is a great point. I would make the counterargument that app translators doing simple transactions of languageA to languageB for $X was possible a decade ago. AI certainly has made that low hanging fruit impossible to capitalize at speed and scale. Since AI has made the easiest part of translator's jobs much harder to monetize, translators can still offer value in lengthy transactions. Books that are to be translated for publishing, legal documents, and languages that are not understood by AI.
- layer8 11mo agoThe (former) translators I know mostly translated B2B publications (brochures, specifications, …), commonly containing specialized domain vocabulary. Certainly not low-hanging fruit. I’m sure AI can’t make a quality job on those without guidance and review by a speaker of both languages knowledgeable in the respective domain. Nevertheless, the market for such translations has dried up, and those that remain only pay a pittance. Part of the reason likely is that the perception that translation is valuable work has changed.
- brainwad 11mo agoIt's because the marginal value of idiomatic human translations, over robotic and partially bad machine translations, is not actually that high. Especially not for B2B where people can accept poor prose from a trading partner.
- pembrook 11mo agoAm I the only one who thinks this is just cringe? I definitely think AI companies marketing claims deserve mockery...but this isn't even good/interesting/smart satire?? It feels like we've fully completed the transition to Reddit here, with its emotional and contradictory high school political zeal (being both progressive and anti-progress at the same time) dominating the narrative. Something about upvote-based communities is not holding up well in the current climate. If humans have regressed enough intellectually where they are praising this as "Brilliant social commentary" then we absolutely SHOULD be replaced by AI.
- nice_byte 11mo agoluckily, I am not planning to stick around for much of this
- nadermx 11mo agoWhat I struggle with is how I'm writing this on a phone, in the back seat of an uber, en route to breakfast. Not even a king could have this level of comfort. While reading the library of alexandria. All I need is desire or will power to do anything, and direct an AI to do it for free. Yet, the future looks bleak.
- relativeadv 11mo agoThink a bit harder on your statement. You'll get there eventually.
- AaronAPU 11mo agoWe have the power to buy 50 lbs of fentanyl and drip it into our veins continuously for months experiencing perfect bliss. Such great fortune, why would we resist it.
- devolving-dev 11mo agoI've never really been convinced that robots or AI replacing humans is a real problem. Because why would they do that? If I had an army of super intelligent robots, I would have them waiting on me and fulfilling my every whim. I wouldn't send them off to silicon valley to take all of the programming jobs or something like that. You might say: "but you'll need money!". Why would I need money? The robots can provide my every need. And if I need money for some land or resource or something, I would have my robots work until my need was satisfied, I wouldn't continue having them work forever. And even if robots did take all of the jobs, they would have to work for free. Because humans would have no jobs, and thus no money with which to pay them. So either mankind enjoys free services from robots that demand no compensation, or we get to keep our jobs. So I really don't get the existential worry here. Yes, at a smaller scale some jobs might be automated, forcing people to retrain or work more menial jobs. But all of humanity being replaced? It doesn't make sense. Another way to think about it is that if all of the jobs were replaced by AI, us leftover jobless humans would create a new economy just trying to grow food and make clothes and build houses and take care of our needs. The robot masters would just split away and have their own economy. Which is the same as them not existing.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- metabagel 11mo ago> The robot masters would just split away and have their own economy. Good thing there are no resources to fight over - land, minerals, and water.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- beeflet 11mo agoIn this hypothetical, let's say I also have an army of super-intelligent robots, and I tell them to grow and multiply endlessly and to take over the world. Then it doesn't matter what you think. The benign forms of superintelligence shaken out by non-benign forms. >Another way to think about it is that if all of the jobs were replaced by AI, us leftover jobless humans would create a new economy just trying to grow food and make clothes and build houses and take care of our needs. On whose land? In any case, it will be cheaper to buy food from the AI. The remaining economy would just be the liquidation of remaining human-controlled assets into the AI-controlled economy for the stuff they need to survive like medicine and food.
- vvpan 11mo agoSome extreme, by modern standards, form of socialism if the future. Why work?
- aledalgrande 11mo agoW40K Machine God incoming
- arisAlexis 11mo agopeak anti-ai right now. I'm waiting for ludite communities and social splitting soon.
- kfarr 11mo agoAfter digging into the contact form embed it looks like this is a project from: https://futureoflife.org/ https://futureoflife.org/
- chaostheory 11mo agoMost people are missing the fact that global birthrates have plummeted. We need to make up for those missing future workers somehow.
- ponector 11mo agoTo be replaced with robot isn't that bad. The worst is if I still have a job, but my supervisor is replaced by robot. That will be absolute misery: job tasks controlled by AI scripts.
- nharada 11mo agoHow come I never see any concrete proposals for how to equitably distribute the wealth of AI? It's always either "stop AI immediately for the sake of our labor" or "don't worry sometime in the future everyone will live in utopia probably". Here's a starter example: any company whose main business is training AI models needs must give up 10% of their company to a fund whose charter is long-term establishing basic care (food, water, electricity, whatever) for citizens. I'm sure people will come at me with "well this will incentivize X instead!" in which case I'd like to hear if there are better thought out proposals.
- atleastoptimal 11mo agoThe problem is there are many people who think AI is a big scam and has no chance of long-term profitability, so a fund would be a non-starter, or people who think AI will be so powerful that any paltry sums would pale in comparison to ASI's full dominance of the lightcone, leaving human habitability a mere afterthought. There honestly aren't a lot of people in the middle amazingly, and most of them work at AI companies anyway. Maybe there's something about our algorithmically manipulated psyche's in the modern age that draws people towards more absolutist all-or-nothing views, incapable of practical nuance when in the face of a potentially grave threat.
- ben_w 11mo ago> How come I never see any concrete proposals for how to equitably distribute the wealth of AI? Probably because most politics about how to "equitably distribute the wealth" of anything are one or both of "badly thought out" and/or "too complex to read". For example of the former, I could easily say "have the government own the AI", which is great if you expect a government that owns AI to continue to care if their policies are supported by anyone living under them, not so much if you consider that a fully automated police force is able to stamp out any dissent etc. For example of the latter, see all efforts to align any non-trivial AI to anything, literally even one thing, without someone messing up the reward function. For your example of 10%, well, there's a dichotomy on how broad the AI is, if it's more like (it's not really boolean) a special-purpose system or if it's fully-general over all that any human can do: • Special-purpose: that works but also you don't need it because it's just an assistant AI and "expands the pie" rather than displacing workers entirely. • Fully-general: the AI company can relocate offshore, or off planet, do whatever it wants and raise a middle finger at you. It's got all the power and you don't.
- yair99dd 11mo agoHarrari on humans > in the industrial revolution of the 19th century what Humanity basically learned to produce was all kinds of stuff like textiles and shoes and weapons and vehicles and this was enough for very few countries that underwent the revolution fast enough to subjugate everybody else what we're talking about now is like a Second Industrial Revolution but the product this time will not be textiles or machines or vehicles or even weapons the product this time will be humans themselves. we are basically learning to produce bodies and Minds bodies and minds are going .... the two main products of the next wave of all these changes and if there is a gap between those that know to produce bodies and minds and those that do not then this is far greater than anything we saw before in history and this time if you're not part of the Revolution fast enough then you probably become extinct once you know how to produce bodies and brains and Minds so cheap labor in Africa or South Asia wherever it simply counts for nothing again I think the biggest question ... maybe in economics and politics of the coming decades will be what to do with all these useless people I don't think we have an economic model to for that, my best guess which is , just a guess, is that food will not be a problem uh with that kind of Technology you will be able to produce food for to feed everybody the problem is more important ... what to do with them and how will they find some sense of meaning in life when they are basically meaningless worthless my best guess at present is a combination of drugs and computer games https://youtu.be/QkYWwWAXgKI https://youtu.be/QkYWwWAXgKI
- StarterPro 11mo agoI for one cannot wait until this bubble bursts. This has been nothing but a test-run for openly fascistic tech hoes to flex their disdain for everyone who isn't them or in their dumb club.
- atleastoptimal 11mo agoA problem with anti-AI discourse is there are three seperate groups who rarely communicate, and if they do they just talk past each other 1. Rationalists/EA's who moderately-strongly believe AI scaling will lead to ASI in the near future and the end of all life (Yud, Scott Alexander) 2. Populist climate-alarmists who hate AI for a combination of water use, copyright infringement, and decimation of the human creative spirit 3. Tech "nothingburgerists" who are convinced that most if not all AI companies are big scams that will fail, LLM's are light-years from "true' intelligence and that it's all a big slop hype cycle that will crumble within months to years. (overrepresented on this site) Each group has a collection of "truthiness-anchors" that they use to defend their position against all criticism. They are all partially valid, in a way, but take their positions to the extreme to the point they are often unwilling to accept any nuance. As a result, conversations often lead nowhere because people defend their position to a quasi-religious degree rather than as a viewpoint predicated on pieces of evidence that may shift or be disproven over time. Regarding the satire in OP, many people will see it as just a funny, unlikely outcome of AI, others will see it as a sobering vision into a very likely future. Both sides may "get" the point, but will fail to agree at least in public, lest they risk losing a sort of status in their alignment with their sanity-preserving viewpoint.
- jrflowers 11mo agoThere are quite a few people that are a combination of 2 and 3. It is perfectly reasonable to both dislike a company and also believe that it’s run by charlatans.
- jgalt212 11mo agoCan I buy one of these robots for the less than the money I can earn using them for Mechanical Turk?
- zurfer 11mo agoHorrible webpage. No clear CTA. No pricing page. Not even "talk to sales". How am I supposed to get started? /s
- darepublic 11mo agoBrilliant satire but all too true. Just clipping snippets from openai and misanthropic provided some of the most hilarious moments
- mobileturdfctry 11mo agoHenry Ford's philosophy was that if he paid his workers a higher wage, they would be able to afford the products they were producing, namely his Model T automobiles. This would, in turn, create a larger customer base for his company and help stimulate the economy by increasing consumer spending.
- materielle 11mo agoI actually think this is a pretty good argument against AI dooming that I don’t here that often. Sam Altman doesn’t own AI. His investors actually own most of the actual assets. Eventually there is going to be pressure for open ai to deliver returns to investors. Given that the majority of the US economy is consumer spending, the incentive is going to be for open ai to increase consumer spending in some way. That’s essentially what happened to Google during the 2000s. I know everyone is negative about social media right now. But one could envision an alternative reality where Google explicitly controls and sensors all information, took over roadways with their driving cars, completely merged with the government, etc. Basically a doomsday scenario. What actually happened is Google was incentivized by capital to narrow the scope of their vision. Today, the company mainly sells ads to increase consumer spending.
- throw81239821 11mo agoI'd agree. The logical fallacy I always observe in (what I call) the marxist-nihilist AI doom scenario is that it assumes that the top N% of people perfectly cooperate in a way that the remaining 100-N% cannot. Even stratified social structure is far too muddled for a "mass-replacement" scenario to not cause the elites to factionalize across different plans that would be best for them, which in turn prevents the kind of unified coherent action that the doom scenario hinges on (ex. theyll gun down the proles with robodogs).
- elliotto 11mo agoTechnofeudalism by Varoufakis is about this N% cooperation. Growing wealth concentration means this collusion becomes possible with smaller and smaller N% cooperating. If it's game theory optimal to cooperate I have no doubt Thiel will be releasing the robo hounds the minute he can.
- p0w3n3d 11mo agoQuite aggressive marketing, or maybe a troll?
- lotfi-mahiddine 11mo ago[dead]
- pugio 11mo agoReminds me of the new book which just came out: "IF ANYONE BUT ME BUILDS IT, EVERYONE MAY AS WELL DIE: A CEO's Guide to Superhuman AI" (https://bsky.app/profile/shalevn.bsky.social/post/3m3jhso2rxs2g https://bsky.app/profile/shalevn.bsky.social/post/3m3jhso2rx...)
- lurby 11mo agoI'm not entirely sure if this is a prank or not.
- lurby 11mo agoI'm not really sure if this is a prank or not.
- mchusma 11mo agoA couple of thoughts: 1. A lot of replacement concerns are macro vs micro concerns. 1.a. Micro, automation pretty much always makes sense. E.g. port automation - consumers, businesses, basically everyone loses by opposing port automation, except a handful of workers. 1.b. Macro, if you apply this to everything, things do start to look a bit strange. Like if humans can't really do much economic activity, this is unfamiliar territory. However, in the US, the labor-force participation rate is 60%. There are a LOT of adults out there who don't work now. While I do think people find value in work, I would guess that number is less than 50% (potentially much lower). Which makes me think that 30% or fewer of adults are deriving significant value from their work. On the one hand, something that effects 30% is pretty massive. But it feels less apocolyptic/overwhelming than it may seem.
- IgorPartola 11mo agoLet’s take this to its logical limit: imagine that AI gets so good that it can replace a lot of jobs en masse. The most popular job in about half of the US is truck drivers, and in the states where it is teachers, truck drivers are number 2. Let’s say we do get to not only self-driving trucks but self-driving trucks loaded by robotic warehouse workers. Let’s postulate that this becomes the norm and let’s say that along with robotic truck drivers and warehouse workers, we also get robotic cashier, road work crews, and so on. I am not giving a timeline here, but let’s explore what happens when we get to 30% unemployment. Then 40%, 50%, 80%. Sure we will have the robot wrangler engineers, scientists, teachers, nurses, etc. But typically we have social unrest past like 8% unemployment. What happens when double digits of people have no jobs and all the time on their hands? Well “eat the rich” might become very literal and no amount of protection against that can really be bought. Ultimately, the only option is either a Dune-style elimination of all AI (very unlikely) or we will have to decouple “living wage income” from “job”. If you think about it, the idea that you must have a job in order to make money is more of an implementation detail. If robots produce so much value that it is actively not even viable for humans to work, the only real logical solution is to distribute the profits from the labor of the robots in a way that isn’t by hourly rate times hours worked. In fact one possible way to do this is to tax the value produced by AI and then funnel that to a universal basic income program. Everyone by default is an artist. If you want to be a nurse or teacher or scientist or engineer you can. Otherwise just produce art at your leisure while the robots work the fields and cook your meals.
- wubrr 11mo agoI think it's inevitable that most jobs will be eventually automated away (even without AI), and that's going to come with major class struggle and restructuring of society.
- HPMOR 11mo agoI stopped reading past the first sentence, because that is not the logical limit. The logical limit is an unparalleled super intelligence that's akin to a god. What you state as the limit in the extrema is incorrect. Therefore with a faulty premise, all consequential propositions are inherently flawed.
- throw4847285 11mo agoFinally, 1970s British science fiction comics have become reality. I am eagerly looking forward to moving into my new apartment on the 578th floor of Sabrina Carpenter Block. There, the extremely high unemployment rates will slowly drive me futsie, and I will become involved in some kind of futuristic street gang. Eventually, I will be shot with an exploding bullet by a masked police officer. The future is now!
- daft_pink 11mo agoNot sure if satirical or irrational exuberance
- classified 11mo agoSo does this track the replacement of artificial intelligence by real intelligence? That would be the worthwhile thing to do.
- cba18jy 11mo agoWithout addressing inequality, governance, and control, the site’s vision risks sounding less like innovation and more like surrender — not to technology itself, but to the unchecked concentration of power behind it.
- OrangeMusic 11mo agoSmall typo: > how to prevent stop
- silexia 11mo agoAI will not stop with just replacing you, it will end you.
- Lumoscore 11mo agoThat sounds totally ominous! It's like the moment the AI finally shows up to take over the corner office. But I think it misses the bigger picture, which you hit on: Robots are helpful, but they're still just tools. An AI can crunch data, find opportunities, and trade faster than any human ever could. It's an incredible helper! However, humans are the ones controlling them. We decide what they trade, and we build the secure systems they rely on. An AI millionaire is still relying on infrastructure that humans have to build to be fast, cheap, and totally stable. If the foundation is shaky, the AI's complex trades fall apart. That reality is what makes me ignore the AI hype and focus entirely on infrastructure. The smart developers know that the long game is building utility assets on robust foundations. They're moving to systems that are super fast and near-zero cost because AI requires zero friction. They're also demanding global market reach so the assets they create aren't trapped anywhere.