3 ms·

They aren't rejecting it at all. They are expressing their opinion on it which is hugely negative. Why? Because it's a useful technology, but so far has succeed

They aren't rejecting it at all. They are expressing their opinion on it which is hugely negative. Why? Because it's a useful technology, but so far has succeeded in taking jobs away, poisoning minds, art, and politics, hoovering up all the capital, and getting shoved into every possible thing. The billionaires tell us over and over, "Get on board or you'll starve!" and I am certain they will be stunned when they meet the rude end of a pitchfork. Edit: I did not intend to advocate violence, just warn about public opinion. Please do not harm anyone.

OutOfHere 5mo ago
> They aren't rejecting it at all. They are expressing their opinion on it which is hugely negative. It is one and the same. > I am certain they will be stunned when they meet the rude end of a pitchfork. Is that a threat? Also, do you understand how the police and government work, and whose side they will take? Even if magically the government were on the side of the luddites, which they won't be, China would then take over the country hurriedly by its embrace of AI. This is why the US military is embracing AI. I don't think you or the graduates have the faintest idea of how aggressively and pervasively China is using AI. > in taking jobs away The people should be asking for basic assistance benefits, and the graduates should striving to automate more so that even more people can have these benefits. This is the only answer that could be fully consistent with reality. Doing repetitive dumb work is appropriate for ants, not humans. These graduates want a salary without competitively delivering value, and that's not going to happen.
- mekdoonggi 5mo ago
  > It is one and the same. Wrong. I have a hugely negative opinion on cars that I express often. Still, I think streets should be complete, and roads built for all modes of travel, and more restrictive laws on car use. > Is that a threat? No. Do you feel threatened? Rest assured, you won't be the billionaire and I won't be a part of the mob, but I'm warning that is what will happen when ordinary people are pushed too far. China taking over the country would be a massive improvement, but they're going to do that by prompting, "Chat take over the US"? Unlikely. > The people should be asking for basic assistance benefits You have resigned your agency as a free human being. We are just a bunch of humans on earth. If we all decided AI was bad enough we could ban it. The people don't want basic assistance, they want a say in the direction of their lives. At the moment, their lives are being directed by billionaires and those who saw a fancy chatbot and decided to willingly become a serf.
  - OutOfHere 5mo ago
    [flagged]
    - mekdoonggi 5mo ago
      I didn't say I wanted to ban it, just that we could. Human beings have collectively regulated all kinds of maths, ideas, and ideologies. I am not a Luddite. I am saying that humans collectively have the power to control things for our benefit. Thankfully I've already passed on my genome :)
      - OutOfHere 5mo ago
        We actually do not regulate mathematics. In the United States, any such regulations would also expressly be unconstitutional under the First Amendment. AI is as much an idealogy as is using a computer, which is to say that it isn't. AI is for our benefit. You know what isn't for our benefit -- stupid jobs that even an automaton can do. We just have to pressure the government in the way I noted earlier, then use any free time to explore our passions. This freedom actually is the precondition of creativity and self-realization.
        adrienne 5mo ago
        > We actually do not regulate mathematics. Counterpoint: ITAR. DeCSS. People have literally been arrested for publishing numbers.
    - standardly 5mo ago
      LOL what a conflation. Legitimately laughed out loud when you said "ban mathematics". Totally not a strawman at all. Typo maybe?
      - OutOfHere 5mo ago
        Not really, and your comment goes to say how poorly you have thought through your comment. AI can be created using many algorithms, all of which correspond to the use of substantial branches of mathematics. A clean delineation will never be possible. If you don't agree, propose your specific definition of AI, and I will find a way to keep counteracting your ban. And if your definition is vague, I will argue that my tech is not AI.
- tom2026hn 5mo ago
  China? A New York Times article reports that a Chinese court has ruled that layoffs justified by AI are illegal. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/19/business/china-ai-unemployment.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/19/business/china-ai-unemplo...
  - OutOfHere 5mo ago
    The firms will obviously then just use any excuse that doesn't contain the word AI. Money to pay salaries is not free. Regardless, at best it protects existing employees. A hiring freeze will still block new workers.
    - tom2026hn 5mo ago
      At the very least, the Chinese government has made its official stance clear—though you could interpret this as a way of saying, “Don’t make me clean up your mess.” Companies will weigh which side entails higher costs and actively explore other avenues, and large corporations won’t dare to act brazenly. If AI becomes very powerful and poses a high risk of replacing ordinary workers’ jobs, this approach will be more effective. For now, however, the market itself may still be able to handle the situation.
- heresiarch39 5mo ago
  When you say China taking over do you mean economically? And how does this scenario play out?
  - OutOfHere 5mo ago
    China will be able to offer substantially better value for money for goods and services too, more than they already do. Imagine the cost efficiency of DeepSeek but for robot rentals. Those using manual labor will stand no chance.
chadgpt3 5mo ago
Please don't use HN to advocate for violence.
- mekdoonggi 5mo ago
  Apologies. Did not intend to advocate, but I will be more considerate of language in the future.
madnewgrad26 5mo ago
It’s a real feeling… lot of hatred for older gens now …
- cindyllm 5mo ago
  [dead]

OutOfHere 5mo ago

> They aren't rejecting it at all. They are expressing their opinion on it which is hugely negative. It is one and the same. > I am certain they will be stunned when they meet the rude end of a pitchfork. Is that a threat? Also, do you understand how the police and government work, and whose side they will take? Even if magically the government were on the side of the luddites, which they won't be, China would then take over the country hurriedly by its embrace of AI. This is why the US military is embracing AI. I don't think you or the graduates have the faintest idea of how aggressively and pervasively China is using AI. > in taking jobs away The people should be asking for basic assistance benefits, and the graduates should striving to automate more so that even more people can have these benefits. This is the only answer that could be fully consistent with reality. Doing repetitive dumb work is appropriate for ants, not humans. These graduates want a salary without competitively delivering value, and that's not going to happen.

mekdoonggi 5mo ago
> It is one and the same. Wrong. I have a hugely negative opinion on cars that I express often. Still, I think streets should be complete, and roads built for all modes of travel, and more restrictive laws on car use. > Is that a threat? No. Do you feel threatened? Rest assured, you won't be the billionaire and I won't be a part of the mob, but I'm warning that is what will happen when ordinary people are pushed too far. China taking over the country would be a massive improvement, but they're going to do that by prompting, "Chat take over the US"? Unlikely. > The people should be asking for basic assistance benefits You have resigned your agency as a free human being. We are just a bunch of humans on earth. If we all decided AI was bad enough we could ban it. The people don't want basic assistance, they want a say in the direction of their lives. At the moment, their lives are being directed by billionaires and those who saw a fancy chatbot and decided to willingly become a serf.
- OutOfHere 5mo ago
  [flagged]
  - mekdoonggi 5mo ago
    I didn't say I wanted to ban it, just that we could. Human beings have collectively regulated all kinds of maths, ideas, and ideologies. I am not a Luddite. I am saying that humans collectively have the power to control things for our benefit. Thankfully I've already passed on my genome :)
    - OutOfHere 5mo ago
      We actually do not regulate mathematics. In the United States, any such regulations would also expressly be unconstitutional under the First Amendment. AI is as much an idealogy as is using a computer, which is to say that it isn't. AI is for our benefit. You know what isn't for our benefit -- stupid jobs that even an automaton can do. We just have to pressure the government in the way I noted earlier, then use any free time to explore our passions. This freedom actually is the precondition of creativity and self-realization.
      - adrienne 5mo ago
        > We actually do not regulate mathematics. Counterpoint: ITAR. DeCSS. People have literally been arrested for publishing numbers.
  - standardly 5mo ago
    LOL what a conflation. Legitimately laughed out loud when you said "ban mathematics". Totally not a strawman at all. Typo maybe?
    - OutOfHere 5mo ago
      Not really, and your comment goes to say how poorly you have thought through your comment. AI can be created using many algorithms, all of which correspond to the use of substantial branches of mathematics. A clean delineation will never be possible. If you don't agree, propose your specific definition of AI, and I will find a way to keep counteracting your ban. And if your definition is vague, I will argue that my tech is not AI.
tom2026hn 5mo ago
China? A New York Times article reports that a Chinese court has ruled that layoffs justified by AI are illegal. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/19/business/china-ai-unemployment.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/19/business/china-ai-unemplo...
- OutOfHere 5mo ago
  The firms will obviously then just use any excuse that doesn't contain the word AI. Money to pay salaries is not free. Regardless, at best it protects existing employees. A hiring freeze will still block new workers.
  - tom2026hn 5mo ago
    At the very least, the Chinese government has made its official stance clear—though you could interpret this as a way of saying, “Don’t make me clean up your mess.” Companies will weigh which side entails higher costs and actively explore other avenues, and large corporations won’t dare to act brazenly. If AI becomes very powerful and poses a high risk of replacing ordinary workers’ jobs, this approach will be more effective. For now, however, the market itself may still be able to handle the situation.
heresiarch39 5mo ago
When you say China taking over do you mean economically? And how does this scenario play out?
- OutOfHere 5mo ago
  China will be able to offer substantially better value for money for goods and services too, more than they already do. Imagine the cost efficiency of DeepSeek but for robot rentals. Those using manual labor will stand no chance.

chadgpt3 5mo ago

Please don't use HN to advocate for violence.

mekdoonggi 5mo ago
Apologies. Did not intend to advocate, but I will be more considerate of language in the future.

madnewgrad26 5mo ago

It’s a real feeling… lot of hatred for older gens now …

cindyllm 5mo ago
[dead]