3 ms·

A year later, do you see it now? I always say humans are not smart enough. First they came for the communists... You know the rest but how many of you would pi

A year later, do you see it now? I always say humans are not smart enough. First they came for the communists... You know the rest but how many of you would pick up a rifle and stand against evil? Well, first they came for the manual workers and many on HN were happy to help. Now they and their autocompletes came for open source devs, taking our work without consent, credit or respecting the licenses and almost nobody stands up against it. They expect me to pay for me own stolen code and most devs are OK with it because it's not their stolen code and they can get their job slightly faster. So how long before they come for you? Because by then you will be economically irrelevant and unable to do anything about it.

skybrian 7mo ago
How far back do you want to go? Programmers have been automating jobs away for a long time. Some historical context: When Craig Newmark created Craigslist (along with Ebay), it was devastating for the economics of newspapers. Lots of jobs selling classified ads went away, as well as funding for the other jobs. Wikipedia made other encyclopedias obsolete. It used to be that you had to do things by mail, by phone, or in person. The websites that we now take for granted probably eliminated lots of jobs processing transactions. Companies used to have typing pools. Were these bad improvements? How is it different now?
- forgetfreeman 7mo ago
  If I was given a choice between robust journalism and whatever Craigslist is the choice seems rather plain. A dispassionate analysis of the majority of tech industry "improvements" reveals similar choices.
  - KnuthIsGod 7mo ago
    Things look much better when looked at with the foggy lens of the retrospecto-scope. I began reading newspapers in the 1960's. Most journalism even in those days was bad and of dubious quality.
    - forgetfreeman 7mo ago
      Attempting to lecture me on what journalism was is a misstep on your part. My first professional development gig was supporting software integrations between 33 local newsrooms, their printing floors, and their (at the time fledgling) online presence. In addition to my normal development work I was frequently called upon to work directly with editorial and newsroom staff on specialty projects and provide on-site support at industry events. As a result I spent a lot of time in the room where shit was going down. While it's always been possible to find shills in the media landscape the overwhelming majority of the men and women I worked for were the kind of intense scary-obsessive anti-authoritarian types that literally skipped meals and sleep (sometimes days at a time) just for a chance at catching industry or government fucking around. And with literally hundreds of newsrooms scattered across the country staffed similarly journalism was a force to be reconned with. But hey, having to pay $5 to sell your couch to a stranger was kind of a drag so I guess this is better.
      - KnuthIsGod 7mo ago
        If you think that every comment on social media is an "attempt to lecture" you, a random nobody on the internet, who once basically worked as support staff to journalists, you have personal problems beyond my powers to fix...
- martin-t 7mo ago
  > How is it different now? Most cases, it was either: a) a new technology unrelated to the original job, which made the job redundant - the printing press was not made by watching scribes doing their mechanical movements faster, it was a fundamentally different principle. It was fair competition between independent 2 options, neither of which exploited the other. In contrast, LLMs cannot exist without programmers first writing immense, astronomical amounts of code as training data. b) people coming together and making something for free which was paid. Wikipedia is not just subsidized by some corporation which makes money from ads, it is made by people who willingly spend their time to make the world a better place for everyone. And none of them, neither a megacorp stand to become rich from it. In contrast, LLMs are trained on people's work without their consent, quite offer against explicitly stated wishes. And it's not a common good, it's a for-profit business which ultimately funnels the gains to the top. --- I am not even against LLMs, they are a tool - neither good or bad. I am against how they are created - LLMs trained on AGPL shoud be AGPL and their output should be AGPL. And I am against how they are used - they extract value from people and redirect the reward for work to people who didn't contribute any work. Fundamentally, people should (collectively) own the product of their work and should negotiate how the reward is distributed on equal footing.
  - skybrian 7mo ago
    Wikipedia utterly depends on knowledge found elsewhere, often in newspapers or books. They have a "no original research" rule. They didn't get anyone's consent.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]

skybrian 7mo ago

How far back do you want to go? Programmers have been automating jobs away for a long time. Some historical context: When Craig Newmark created Craigslist (along with Ebay), it was devastating for the economics of newspapers. Lots of jobs selling classified ads went away, as well as funding for the other jobs. Wikipedia made other encyclopedias obsolete. It used to be that you had to do things by mail, by phone, or in person. The websites that we now take for granted probably eliminated lots of jobs processing transactions. Companies used to have typing pools. Were these bad improvements? How is it different now?

forgetfreeman 7mo ago
If I was given a choice between robust journalism and whatever Craigslist is the choice seems rather plain. A dispassionate analysis of the majority of tech industry "improvements" reveals similar choices.
- KnuthIsGod 7mo ago
  Things look much better when looked at with the foggy lens of the retrospecto-scope. I began reading newspapers in the 1960's. Most journalism even in those days was bad and of dubious quality.
  - forgetfreeman 7mo ago
    Attempting to lecture me on what journalism was is a misstep on your part. My first professional development gig was supporting software integrations between 33 local newsrooms, their printing floors, and their (at the time fledgling) online presence. In addition to my normal development work I was frequently called upon to work directly with editorial and newsroom staff on specialty projects and provide on-site support at industry events. As a result I spent a lot of time in the room where shit was going down. While it's always been possible to find shills in the media landscape the overwhelming majority of the men and women I worked for were the kind of intense scary-obsessive anti-authoritarian types that literally skipped meals and sleep (sometimes days at a time) just for a chance at catching industry or government fucking around. And with literally hundreds of newsrooms scattered across the country staffed similarly journalism was a force to be reconned with. But hey, having to pay $5 to sell your couch to a stranger was kind of a drag so I guess this is better.
    - KnuthIsGod 7mo ago
      If you think that every comment on social media is an "attempt to lecture" you, a random nobody on the internet, who once basically worked as support staff to journalists, you have personal problems beyond my powers to fix...
martin-t 7mo ago
> How is it different now? Most cases, it was either: a) a new technology unrelated to the original job, which made the job redundant - the printing press was not made by watching scribes doing their mechanical movements faster, it was a fundamentally different principle. It was fair competition between independent 2 options, neither of which exploited the other. In contrast, LLMs cannot exist without programmers first writing immense, astronomical amounts of code as training data. b) people coming together and making something for free which was paid. Wikipedia is not just subsidized by some corporation which makes money from ads, it is made by people who willingly spend their time to make the world a better place for everyone. And none of them, neither a megacorp stand to become rich from it. In contrast, LLMs are trained on people's work without their consent, quite offer against explicitly stated wishes. And it's not a common good, it's a for-profit business which ultimately funnels the gains to the top. --- I am not even against LLMs, they are a tool - neither good or bad. I am against how they are created - LLMs trained on AGPL shoud be AGPL and their output should be AGPL. And I am against how they are used - they extract value from people and redirect the reward for work to people who didn't contribute any work. Fundamentally, people should (collectively) own the product of their work and should negotiate how the reward is distributed on equal footing.
- skybrian 7mo ago
  Wikipedia utterly depends on knowledge found elsewhere, often in newspapers or books. They have a "no original research" rule. They didn't get anyone's consent.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]