5 ms·

>> I’m tired of working in an industry hell bent on the destruction of society. People will argue this point. However, when I look at all the things that tech

>> I’m tired of working in an industry hell bent on the destruction of society. People will argue this point. However, when I look at all the things that tech has done thinking it was going to improve society; when in fact, it did the exact opposite is hard to argue. AI is just another item on a very long list of dystopian markers that writers/musicians have warned us about for years. The scary part now is people denying its happening right in front of them.

jordwest 5mo ago
> The scary part now is people denying its happening right in front of them. I wonder if age is a factor. Those of us who have been around for a while have seen all the promises and hope and excitement about the future, that maybe 20% of that comes true and the rest ends up being the usual exploitation and greed. The younger people haven't been through that cycle of disillusionment yet so they still believe that only the positive, hopeful dreams will come true. It's natural, but naive, to believe that humans will always collectively choose the best path forward [1]. My grandma always refused to touch computers despite my excitement about them in my youth and I couldn't understand why. Now I think I get it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
- karmakurtisaani 5mo ago
  This made me think about the difference of growing old in a static world vs a one where change is constantly accelerating. In the former, you understand it better and better as you age, but in the latter you're left with knowledge that's of no use while the next generation is ahead of you just by the privilege of being young. In the former, you are a valuable source of information. In the latter, a burden.
  - coldtea 5mo ago
    >In the former, you understand it better and better as you age, but in the latter you're left with knowledge that's of no use while the next generation is ahead of you just by the privilege of being young. I'd put it more like: you're left with knowledge that sees right through bullshit and the same-old promises and error modes, but nobody's buying. And the next generation is hired precisely because they're naive to all of that to repeat the same mistakes eagerly while sociopaths profit.
    - pjmlp 5mo ago
      Exactly, something that seniority brings is the ability to say no, and that isn't something most managers want to hear.
- coldtea 5mo ago
  Yes. Also folks who've been around remember what e.g. the dream of FOSS was (it wasn't merely about getting "software with a specific type of license" at your phone or behind some corporate cloud).
- jnpnj 5mo ago
  Could you tell us more about your grandma point of view (if she ever told you more of course). With age I'm becoming jaded with computing, not personal computers per se, but the overwhelming space taken by them now (especially due to cheap networking I guess).
  - jordwest 5mo ago
    She just didn't see the point in them, she enjoyed a simple life, grew up with little but had a full life and didn't see the need for more. She would ask me as a kid "you've been playing the television again have you?". I don't think she ever really understood that to me it was a creative tool. I did manage to convince her to try a VR headset at one point and despite her protests she clearly enjoyed it. Afterwards she said "what a silly gadget" haha. I'm realising now that I have similar feelings about generative AI.
    - jnpnj 5mo ago
      Hehe yeah we all have our own tastes based on time. But I'm also interested about the perception of computers. I too was enamoured with the creative possibilities of it. But nowadays I see a detrimental trend in how aesthetics are born on computers. The cleanliness, the recurrent patterns. A lot of pre-computing visuals were really different, none of it would qualify as nice today, but it was seen a cute before, and I kind of miss the less structured, less obvious, less shiny approach. It was also material, a different game, with constraints about possible colours, shape and precision you know. It also distracts us too much and creates real mind issues (I struggle with strange behaviors when browsing, near no attention-span etc) So now I rebalance things and put computers in a smaller niche, not the centre of gravity.
      - jordwest 5mo ago
        I can totally relate, funny enough I find myself drifting back to really appreciating old school interfaces and pixel fonts lately. I've been enjoying using the old IBM DOS font [1] [2] in my editor, terminal etc. Hard to tell if it's just nostalgia, but all the smoothing, drop shadows, antialiasing (and now blurring with MacOS 26) feel so unnecessary and hardly even pretty anymore. There's something nice about computer interfaces that just look like computer interfaces instead of pretending they're something else. IMO part of it is that the older interfaces trusted the intelligence of the user to understand the abstractions below the interface, while newer software assumes the user is dumb in order to capture the largest possible market share. In the 90s it was "RTFM", now it's "your software sucks if it's not obvious". But what we lost in that is that interfaces now abstract away what's actually going on underneath. Maybe this preference for the old way is part of the reason for the resurgence of TUIs. [1] https://viznut.fi/unscii/ [2] https://int10h.org/oldschool-pc-fonts/fontlist/
trhway 5mo ago
>However, when I look at all the things that tech has done thinking it was going to improve society; when in fact, it did the exact opposite is hard to argue. Imagine, you invented iron production to improve people lives - better tools (ploughs, axes, knives), etc - and now you see how people immediately use it for better weapons crushing the ones who have still been using bronze. Or for example from the Palantir's Karp's book "Technological Republic" : " We make the case that one of the most significant challenges that we face in this country is ensuring that the U.S. Department of Defense turns the corner from an institution designed to fight and win kinetic wars to an organization that can design, build, and acquire AI weaponry—... " The tech is great, be it iron or AI. The people are still [almost] the same (i sometimes think that our evolutionary goal is the AGI robots who would take over the Earth and will evolve toward higher morals and conscience faster than we would - as they would naturally have shared brain state/connection that we can get only if we develop telepathy which we wouldn't, and we unfortunately disregard the next best thing - empathy)
- stevenlangbroek 5mo ago
  "technology is neutral, deployment is not" is that a reasonable statement? if so, congratulations, welcome to the club bud! you're a luddite now. we meet on tuesdays, please bring cookies if it's your first time.
munksbeer 5mo ago
>People will argue this point. However, when I look at all the things that tech has done thinking it was going to improve society; when in fact, it did the exact opposite is hard to argue. Certainly a lot of bad things have come out of tech. But I don't agree that it has made everything overall worse. That feels like recency bias. In which few decades in history would you rather be spending your years on this earth, instead of now?
- coldtea 5mo ago
  I'd take the 90s, 80s, 70s or 60s anytime, just gimme that magic time travel option. You know what, even the 00s would be fine.
  - munksbeer 5mo ago
    Yes, recency bias.
    - coldtea 5mo ago
      Nope, raw "actually good balance of stuff I like and stuff I don't like in those decades" pragmatism. I could not give less fucks for having AI and smartphones and most other stuff, including all the fancy new medical procedures which are barely incremental. Fridges, basic 90s-style internet and mini-skirts and welfare, and cheap housing, and jobs-a-plenty, more affordable healthcare, and the lifestyle, I can use just fine! And I'd avoid the Plague or feudal times too. Including the techno-feudal times of today. Pretend people can't have periods they'd be fine to live again and might prefer to today is bullshit.
      - munksbeer 5mo ago
        The thing is, the option you want is available today. There are communities all around the world that live much simpler lives. Some just because that is how they are, others because they've formed communities to escape all the things you don't like. Genuine question, have you ever investigated these options? If so, why did you dismiss them?
grim_io 5mo ago
We are building software in the image of their sponsors. This is nothing new or unique to software.
- coldtea 5mo ago
  It is quite new historically.
  - selfhoster1312 5mo ago
    The software part, yes. For the rest, luddites would like to have a word: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite (probably not the oldest instance, but the oldest i know of)
classified 5mo ago
> The scary part now is people denying its happening right in front of them. Even scarier are the UIs for whom it's not happening fast enough and who cheer it on. Most of them don't realize they are digging their own graves if the promises they believe in become true. And if they don't become true, there will be a rude awakening for a great many people and bankruptcy for many companies.

jordwest 5mo ago

> The scary part now is people denying its happening right in front of them. I wonder if age is a factor. Those of us who have been around for a while have seen all the promises and hope and excitement about the future, that maybe 20% of that comes true and the rest ends up being the usual exploitation and greed. The younger people haven't been through that cycle of disillusionment yet so they still believe that only the positive, hopeful dreams will come true. It's natural, but naive, to believe that humans will always collectively choose the best path forward [1]. My grandma always refused to touch computers despite my excitement about them in my youth and I couldn't understand why. Now I think I get it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

karmakurtisaani 5mo ago
This made me think about the difference of growing old in a static world vs a one where change is constantly accelerating. In the former, you understand it better and better as you age, but in the latter you're left with knowledge that's of no use while the next generation is ahead of you just by the privilege of being young. In the former, you are a valuable source of information. In the latter, a burden.
- coldtea 5mo ago
  >In the former, you understand it better and better as you age, but in the latter you're left with knowledge that's of no use while the next generation is ahead of you just by the privilege of being young. I'd put it more like: you're left with knowledge that sees right through bullshit and the same-old promises and error modes, but nobody's buying. And the next generation is hired precisely because they're naive to all of that to repeat the same mistakes eagerly while sociopaths profit.
  - pjmlp 5mo ago
    Exactly, something that seniority brings is the ability to say no, and that isn't something most managers want to hear.
coldtea 5mo ago
Yes. Also folks who've been around remember what e.g. the dream of FOSS was (it wasn't merely about getting "software with a specific type of license" at your phone or behind some corporate cloud).
jnpnj 5mo ago
Could you tell us more about your grandma point of view (if she ever told you more of course). With age I'm becoming jaded with computing, not personal computers per se, but the overwhelming space taken by them now (especially due to cheap networking I guess).
- jordwest 5mo ago
  She just didn't see the point in them, she enjoyed a simple life, grew up with little but had a full life and didn't see the need for more. She would ask me as a kid "you've been playing the television again have you?". I don't think she ever really understood that to me it was a creative tool. I did manage to convince her to try a VR headset at one point and despite her protests she clearly enjoyed it. Afterwards she said "what a silly gadget" haha. I'm realising now that I have similar feelings about generative AI.
  - jnpnj 5mo ago
    Hehe yeah we all have our own tastes based on time. But I'm also interested about the perception of computers. I too was enamoured with the creative possibilities of it. But nowadays I see a detrimental trend in how aesthetics are born on computers. The cleanliness, the recurrent patterns. A lot of pre-computing visuals were really different, none of it would qualify as nice today, but it was seen a cute before, and I kind of miss the less structured, less obvious, less shiny approach. It was also material, a different game, with constraints about possible colours, shape and precision you know. It also distracts us too much and creates real mind issues (I struggle with strange behaviors when browsing, near no attention-span etc) So now I rebalance things and put computers in a smaller niche, not the centre of gravity.
    - jordwest 5mo ago
      I can totally relate, funny enough I find myself drifting back to really appreciating old school interfaces and pixel fonts lately. I've been enjoying using the old IBM DOS font [1] [2] in my editor, terminal etc. Hard to tell if it's just nostalgia, but all the smoothing, drop shadows, antialiasing (and now blurring with MacOS 26) feel so unnecessary and hardly even pretty anymore. There's something nice about computer interfaces that just look like computer interfaces instead of pretending they're something else. IMO part of it is that the older interfaces trusted the intelligence of the user to understand the abstractions below the interface, while newer software assumes the user is dumb in order to capture the largest possible market share. In the 90s it was "RTFM", now it's "your software sucks if it's not obvious". But what we lost in that is that interfaces now abstract away what's actually going on underneath. Maybe this preference for the old way is part of the reason for the resurgence of TUIs. [1] https://viznut.fi/unscii/ [2] https://int10h.org/oldschool-pc-fonts/fontlist/

trhway 5mo ago

>However, when I look at all the things that tech has done thinking it was going to improve society; when in fact, it did the exact opposite is hard to argue. Imagine, you invented iron production to improve people lives - better tools (ploughs, axes, knives), etc - and now you see how people immediately use it for better weapons crushing the ones who have still been using bronze. Or for example from the Palantir's Karp's book "Technological Republic" : " We make the case that one of the most significant challenges that we face in this country is ensuring that the U.S. Department of Defense turns the corner from an institution designed to fight and win kinetic wars to an organization that can design, build, and acquire AI weaponry—... " The tech is great, be it iron or AI. The people are still [almost] the same (i sometimes think that our evolutionary goal is the AGI robots who would take over the Earth and will evolve toward higher morals and conscience faster than we would - as they would naturally have shared brain state/connection that we can get only if we develop telepathy which we wouldn't, and we unfortunately disregard the next best thing - empathy)

stevenlangbroek 5mo ago
"technology is neutral, deployment is not" is that a reasonable statement? if so, congratulations, welcome to the club bud! you're a luddite now. we meet on tuesdays, please bring cookies if it's your first time.

munksbeer 5mo ago

>People will argue this point. However, when I look at all the things that tech has done thinking it was going to improve society; when in fact, it did the exact opposite is hard to argue. Certainly a lot of bad things have come out of tech. But I don't agree that it has made everything overall worse. That feels like recency bias. In which few decades in history would you rather be spending your years on this earth, instead of now?

coldtea 5mo ago
I'd take the 90s, 80s, 70s or 60s anytime, just gimme that magic time travel option. You know what, even the 00s would be fine.
- munksbeer 5mo ago
  Yes, recency bias.
  - coldtea 5mo ago
    Nope, raw "actually good balance of stuff I like and stuff I don't like in those decades" pragmatism. I could not give less fucks for having AI and smartphones and most other stuff, including all the fancy new medical procedures which are barely incremental. Fridges, basic 90s-style internet and mini-skirts and welfare, and cheap housing, and jobs-a-plenty, more affordable healthcare, and the lifestyle, I can use just fine! And I'd avoid the Plague or feudal times too. Including the techno-feudal times of today. Pretend people can't have periods they'd be fine to live again and might prefer to today is bullshit.
    - munksbeer 5mo ago
      The thing is, the option you want is available today. There are communities all around the world that live much simpler lives. Some just because that is how they are, others because they've formed communities to escape all the things you don't like. Genuine question, have you ever investigated these options? If so, why did you dismiss them?

grim_io 5mo ago

We are building software in the image of their sponsors. This is nothing new or unique to software.

coldtea 5mo ago
It is quite new historically.
- selfhoster1312 5mo ago
  The software part, yes. For the rest, luddites would like to have a word: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite (probably not the oldest instance, but the oldest i know of)

classified 5mo ago

> The scary part now is people denying its happening right in front of them. Even scarier are the UIs for whom it's not happening fast enough and who cheer it on. Most of them don't realize they are digging their own graves if the promises they believe in become true. And if they don't become true, there will be a rude awakening for a great many people and bankruptcy for many companies.