3 ms·

Is there a way back to calling human beings human beings and not "meat"? Or is the sociopathic Jeffrey Dahmer undertone now the new normal?

sp527 6mo ago
Sure. Would you like WWII, medieval-era Christianity, or Khanate Asia?
- bythreads 6mo ago
  stone age gets a vote from me!
cwmma 6mo ago
What are you talking about, the only use of meat is in "Meat Shield", a phrase that's been around a long time now.
jjulius 6mo ago
In the article, Ctrl+F for "meat" returns 3 results, while "human" returns 8. Seems like "human" remains the dominant word of choice in this author's vernacular. Edit: Further, the only times "meat" appears is in the phrase "meat shield", which is an analogy that is very apt relative to the crux of the article. Edit 2: "People" appears 13 times!
sebg 6mo ago
humans are made of meat -> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47688678 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47688678
techteach00 6mo ago
There has always been a subset of highly technical people in the software world who are anti-organic. They dislike the "meatspace" and humans and relate more with machines and software.
- elcapitan 6mo ago
  Yeah, that was what I was refering to, no the specific part of the article. I've seen it much more here recently. Kind of disgusting and sad, but on the other hand it's good if people show their real face that way.
fHr 6mo ago
Meat pupeteering, has nothing to do with Jeffrey just state of slowly getting pushed into doing 95% of devwork with Agents.
ai_critic 6mo ago
"meatshield" has the correct connotations for that sort of work.
crote 6mo ago
That is exactly why the term is being used. A company like Amazon doesn't treat its warehouse workers as human beings. Workers are seen as disposable: forced to piss in bottles, forced to work around the corpses of their collapsed coworkers, paid the absolute minimum possible, and replaced the second they don't operate like a perfect unfailing machine. You aren't viewed like a human, you are a tool. Cattle. A piece of meat they are forced to retain because a robot isn't quite capable of doing your task yet. The article's use of "meat shields" isn't any different. Humans are going to be hired for the sole reason of taking accountability for actions dictated by AI. They are there only because the company can't put blame on a machine and will be sued to oblivion if there's nobody to blame at all. Your existence as a person is irrelevant, they are just interested in someone with a heartbeat they can blame when stuff inevitably goes wrong.
- chii 6mo ago
  > someone with a heartbeat they can blame when stuff inevitably goes wrong. if said person can be blamed (and take on the liability), but cannot stop the action or audit the action, take preventative measures (which costs money) etc, then they cannot take responsibility for real and thus whether the blame falls on them on paper is irrelevant - if there's real punishment (like jail time), but no real power to enforce anything, then who would be stupid enough to take on this job? If there's no real punishment, then what does it matter that the blame on paper is there?
  - cdrnsf 6mo ago
    Someone who needs to feed their family given that AI CEOs predicting that their technology will either destroy the world, take everyone's jobs or both.
  - thunderfork 6mo ago
    There are several historical examples of this sort of job, and plenty of people who took them. For example, plenty of "editors in name only" of publications when the German government got really interested in censoring press in the 18th century.
- 6mo ago

sp527 6mo ago

Sure. Would you like WWII, medieval-era Christianity, or Khanate Asia?

bythreads 6mo ago
stone age gets a vote from me!

cwmma 6mo ago

What are you talking about, the only use of meat is in "Meat Shield", a phrase that's been around a long time now.

jjulius 6mo ago

In the article, Ctrl+F for "meat" returns 3 results, while "human" returns 8. Seems like "human" remains the dominant word of choice in this author's vernacular. Edit: Further, the only times "meat" appears is in the phrase "meat shield", which is an analogy that is very apt relative to the crux of the article. Edit 2: "People" appears 13 times!

sebg 6mo ago

humans are made of meat -> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47688678 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47688678

techteach00 6mo ago

There has always been a subset of highly technical people in the software world who are anti-organic. They dislike the "meatspace" and humans and relate more with machines and software.

elcapitan 6mo ago
Yeah, that was what I was refering to, no the specific part of the article. I've seen it much more here recently. Kind of disgusting and sad, but on the other hand it's good if people show their real face that way.

fHr 6mo ago

Meat pupeteering, has nothing to do with Jeffrey just state of slowly getting pushed into doing 95% of devwork with Agents.

ai_critic 6mo ago

"meatshield" has the correct connotations for that sort of work.

crote 6mo ago

That is exactly why the term is being used. A company like Amazon doesn't treat its warehouse workers as human beings. Workers are seen as disposable: forced to piss in bottles, forced to work around the corpses of their collapsed coworkers, paid the absolute minimum possible, and replaced the second they don't operate like a perfect unfailing machine. You aren't viewed like a human, you are a tool. Cattle. A piece of meat they are forced to retain because a robot isn't quite capable of doing your task yet. The article's use of "meat shields" isn't any different. Humans are going to be hired for the sole reason of taking accountability for actions dictated by AI. They are there only because the company can't put blame on a machine and will be sued to oblivion if there's nobody to blame at all. Your existence as a person is irrelevant, they are just interested in someone with a heartbeat they can blame when stuff inevitably goes wrong.

chii 6mo ago
> someone with a heartbeat they can blame when stuff inevitably goes wrong. if said person can be blamed (and take on the liability), but cannot stop the action or audit the action, take preventative measures (which costs money) etc, then they cannot take responsibility for real and thus whether the blame falls on them on paper is irrelevant - if there's real punishment (like jail time), but no real power to enforce anything, then who would be stupid enough to take on this job? If there's no real punishment, then what does it matter that the blame on paper is there?
- cdrnsf 6mo ago
  Someone who needs to feed their family given that AI CEOs predicting that their technology will either destroy the world, take everyone's jobs or both.
- thunderfork 6mo ago
  There are several historical examples of this sort of job, and plenty of people who took them. For example, plenty of "editors in name only" of publications when the German government got really interested in censoring press in the 18th century.
6mo ago