4 ms·
I think this comment is reacting to a different argument than the one the article is actually making. The piece isn’t claiming that AI tools are useless or tha
by kuerbel 9mo ago
I think this comment is reacting to a different argument than the one the article is actually making.
The piece isn’t claiming that AI tools are useless or that they don’t materially improve day-to-day work. In fact, it more or less assumes the opposite. The critique is about the economic and organizational story being told around AI, not about whether an individual developer can ship faster today.
Saying “these tools now do a considerable portion of my work” operates on the micro level of personal productivity. Doctorow is operating on the macro level: how firms reframe human labor as “automation,” push humans into oversight and liability roles, and use exaggerated autonomy claims to justify valuations, layoffs, and cost-cutting.
Ironically, the “Wile E. Coyote running off a cliff” metaphor aligns more with the article than against it. The whole “reverse centaur” idea is that jobs don’t disappear instantly; they degrade first. People keep running because the system still sort of works, until the ground is gone and the responsibility snaps back onto humans.
So there’s no contradiction between “this saves me hours a day” and “this is being oversold in ways that will destabilize jobs and business models.” Those two things can be true at the same time. The comment seems to rebut “AI doesn’t work,” which isn’t really the claim being made.
- sodapopcan 9mo ago> I think this comment is reacting to a different argument than the one the article is actually making. The headline.
- zdragnar 9mo agoAh yes, the notoriously accurate headline.
- bee_rider 9mo agoWe’re supposed to pretend people read articles instead of just the headline (it is in the posting guidelines). To play along with that rule, people will write as if the poster they are responding to missed some nuance of the article.
- whimsicalism 9mo agoI like that you all are having your own little side conversation making fun of me without engaging at all on the substance.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- bee_rider 9mo agoThat’s fair. I was accepting sodapopcan’s premise while responding to them. My joke was intended to be aimed at the posting guides and these little Hackernews traditions. But, it was a bit dismissive toward you, which is a little rude. Sorry.
- sodapopcan 9mo agoThis isn't a conversation, lol. I don't have much to offer here (and yes, sorry, after I made my snarky remark I realize you had indeed read the article). I recognize AI's capabilities but mainly don't use it primarily for political reasons but also because I just enjoy writing code. I'll sometimes use up the chatgpt free limit using it as a somewhat better search engine (and it's not always better) but there's no way I'm paying for agents, which is everything to do with where the money is going, not the money itself. Of course there are other reasons outside of how AI is used by programmers that would derail the general theme of these threads. I'm just drawn to these threads for the drama and sometimes it triggers me and I write a snarky throwaway comment. If the discussions, and particularly the companies themselves, could shift to actual societal good it can do and how it is concretely getting there, that would hold my attention. Instead we get Sona etc.
- johnnyanmac 9mo agoIf you're going to dismiss conversation, why bother with the fascimile?
- whimsicalism 9mo agoYou can read my reply to another comment making a similar point. In short, I think you are giving Doctorow far too much credit - the assumption that these tools are fundamentally incapable is woven throughout the essay, the risk always comes from the fact that managers might think these tools (which are obviously inferior) can do your job. The notion that they can actually do your job is treated as invariable absurd, pie-in-the-sky, bubble thinking, or unmentionable. My point is I don’t think a technology that went from chatgpt (cool, useless) to opus-4.5+ in 3 years is obviously being oversold when it says that it can do your entire job beyond being just a useful tool.
- roxolotl 9mo agoBut Corey isn’t saying it’s oversold he’s saying the value capture by a few companies enabled by AI is dangerous to society.
- whimsicalism 9mo agoI do not agree with your reading of the article. The premise - both implicit and stated explicitly throughout the article - is that companies are hyping this up because they want to be seen as growing, that this technology cannot do your job, that these are statistical tools foolishly being used to replace real workers. Look at the bits I quote in my other comment. I would have been much more interested in reading the article you’re suggesting.
- johnnyanmac 9mo agoYou need to read the article again with a more charitable lens. He starts with >What I do not do is predict the future. No one can predict the future, which is a good thing, since if the future were predictable, that would mean we couldn’t change it. It feels like shoving words on Cory's mouth to make statements like "he's saying it can't replace us". That is the exact point he avoids in the article to focus on the human. Not the tech and capabilities.
- happy_dog1 9mo ago
- artninja1988 9mo ago> The piece isn’t claiming that AI tools are useless or that they don’t materially improve day-to-day work Would you call something that could replace your labor "spicy auto complete"? He also evokes nfts and blockchain, for some reason. To me this phrasing makes it sound like he thinks they are damn near useless.
- johnnyanmac 9mo agoWhat cory thinks now doesn't affect the piece that focuses on the future and how humanity shapes around it. It feels like missing the forest for the trees to focus on what he feels about AI in c.2025 when the piece is talking about ramifications.