4 ms·
The problem is not AI. It's an excellent technology. The problem is there's an underlying power grab (e.g. layoffs). When humans do that to each other they inhe
by Herring 3mo ago
The problem is not AI. It's an excellent technology. The problem is there's an underlying power grab (e.g. layoffs). When humans do that to each other they inherently dehumanize/invalidate/insult each other. Implement strong labor protections or basic income and a lot of this dog-eat-dog toxicity goes away.
- ttoinou 3mo agoAutomating a job is toxic now ?
- kderbyma 3mo agoYes when the sole purpose is to remove the livelihood of people in an attempt to make short term gains for selfish short term reasons....AI is a weapon when you have corporate stooge lackies who have nothing but animous towards fellow humans who dare to work...and try to live. If AI was beneficial, no one would profitize it....but lbr...you know that...
- ttoinou 3mo agoIf AI is not beneficial, then those humans could be re-hired soon. Big companies are always doing bad things, but not because they use AI, because they have legal protections which prevents small companies (which could be anyone like you and me) to compete. The same small companies who could also benefit from using AI.
- ori_b 3mo agoBeneficial for who?
- jmye 3mo ago> If AI was beneficial, no one would profitize it What? How does that follow?
- kderbyma 3mo agoProfit implies...more than it took....ie....you are taking more than giving...thus not a benefit except for profit...which is not a true benefit
- simianwords 3mo agoAutomating _my_ job is toxic. Automating other people’s and being employed as a software developer is wholesome chungus moment.
- jmye 3mo ago[flagged]
- iugtmkbdfil834 3mo agoNot parent, but responding as I have an interest in languages and expression across cohorts. Short answer: not typically.
- PedroBatista 3mo agoIt can be. Because most automations never capture the complete scope of the job/task ( not even close ). Just like neurons, if you don't use it you lose it and when the inevitable problems come, nobody knows the why, the how and the what. At that point someone smart would incorporate all those real costs and opportunity loses on the "automating everything" equation. But they usually don't. Of course automating tasks is a must, but it's very far from being a black and white situation. These dynamics have been happening for centuries by now, nothing new.
- ttoinou 3mo agoI agree with that, and that’s why it’s better to ask an AI and improve your prompt, instead of hiring a human that will disappear and you will loose all institutional knowledge
- brailsafe 3mo agoYou only have as much institutional knowledge as you're willing to cultivate and be liable for. Many companies already don't give a shit about institutional knowledge, indicated by how little they're willing to invest in keeping a strong team together, caused in-part by long-standing toxic incentive structures. Ask an AI to solve a problem and it may do that, but if you don't understand why or how it works, or what to do with the information in order to keep it useful for even the medium term, then all you've done is taken away the opportunity for someone else to be responsible for something you shouldn't be. It's not necessarily a mystery how to make good food. You can ask an AI how to make good food, follow the instructions, and you're off to the races. The question then is whether you want to be in that race. Would you have gone to chef school? Would you work in a kitchen? Are you willing to deal with customers, or risk RSI from so many repeated kitchen movements? Are you willing to practice and be tested? If the answer to any of those is no, then get the hell out of that kitchen and let the people who have more grit than you do their job. Do what you can to make it easier for you to pay them consistently and well on the back-end.
- skydhash 3mo agoThe risk of hiring a hunan is easy enough to manage. Ensure that the process is documented and new hires are trained. Any disturbance by someone leavingg is then smoothed out in the long term. Can you show us how it’s better to use an AI to ensure steadiness over a long period of time?
- overgard 3mo agoDepends on the scale and the technology. If the answer is "all of white collar workers" then I would argue it's very toxic. (I don't think it can do that, but it's hard not to get the impression that it's absolutely the goal). I haven't really heard of a stable society with 50% unemployment and zero social safety net.
- sublinear 3mo agoI don't think anyone ever really believed it would replace ordinary jobs. That angle was meant to appeal to emotion and distract the public from the shady deals and big defense spending. Think about all the security clearances no longer required to aggregate big data into intelligence reports. The conditions and incentives for LLMs seem almost laser focused on replacing those particular jobs. It wasn't but ~20 years ago that people were concerned about Google slurping up all the world's data into spying programs. Now that the hardest part to hide is happening, people have forgotten or assumed it already had. Many other smaller and far less capable businesses have come and gone and taken tiny bits of blame until the public was satisfied they knew who the "real" scapegoats were. What they really had were overcomplicated theories built on a nebulous cloud of debatable evidence that led nowhere. This is how it succeeds in plain sight every time.
- super256 3mo ago200 years ago 75% of the population in western Europe were farmers. 100 years ago 41% were farmers. 10 years ago 1-3% were farmers. We are looking forward to bring the same productivity gains to logistics and manufacturing (look at the advancements done in the last few decades!). Why not bring this to white collar work too? I get so much more shit done today than I did a few years ago. It's a great time to be alive!
- ori_b 3mo agoHas your salary gone up to match your productivity, or are you giving it all away for free? You're not one of the people who gets to benefit from the gains.
- 3mo ago
- forgetfreeman 3mo agoWhen did killing someone else's livelihood stop being sociopathic?
- orangecat 3mo ago"Computer" used to be a job title for a human. Was it sociopathic to introduce mechanical calculators because it made those jobs unnecessary?
- forgetfreeman 3mo agoThat argument is on really shaky ground in an era of ubiquitous surveillance, social media, Amazon's retail extortion empire.
- ttoinou 3mo agoSince the luddites at least
- rpdillon 3mo agoIt never was... tools and automation have been central to humanity's progress.
- forgetfreeman 3mo agoAutomating a stamp mill that fed 50 families does not obviously correlate with human progress. I'm sure it's nice for an auto manufacturer's bottom line though.
- jayd16 3mo agoClearly not what is being said. If you read dehumanizing your workers and equate it with automating a job, then you're already well into the feeling that humans are fungible pawns to be disposed of, no? Instead, you can and probably should see technology as augmenting you and your coworkers.
- ttoinou 3mo agoI don’t think humans workers should be cogs in the machine, but from my experience unfortunately that’s how people want to be treated. One simple explanation is that there is no freedom / creativity without responsibility, and the latter is extremely expensive in brain resources
- eikenberry 3mo agoThey mentioned layoffs, not automation. You can 100% have one without the other.
- sublinear 3mo agoAI is completely irrelevant to the power that software wields. Implementing labor protections and basic income is not seeing the forest for the trees. What we need is a more educated public that can contribute their ideas. All AI can do is lower the barrier to entry, but it does not replace the need for education.