3 ms·

(And I admit I'm salty that the "I don't give a shit about why the calculator doesn't work in France, I'm just here because they pay me to fix it" people were t

by Bratmon 3mo ago

(And I admit I'm salty that the "I don't give a shit about why the calculator doesn't work in France, I'm just here because they pay me to fix it" people were the ones vindicated by technological progress)

teaearlgraycold 3mo ago
[flagged]
- slopinthebag 3mo ago
  In every industry, and we wonder why everything is being enshittified. I'm not looking forward to using computers or technology over the next decade. There is a non-zero chance myself or a loved one is killed because of vibe coding.
  - fragmede 3mo ago
    There's also a non zero chance that someone in your life is going to have fun and whimsy and their life improved by vibe coding. Why focus on the negative?
    - QwenGlazer9000 3mo ago
      Are you fr?
    - slopinthebag 3mo ago
      Yes who cares if they die as long as they had some fun and whimsy first! :P Edit: fr though I have plenty of fun and whimsy without needing vibe coded apps and I'd prefer a 911 call didn't get routed to Burger King because someone vibe coded the comm stack...
      - esseph 3mo ago
        We're all going to die. Have your fun and whimsy.
      - fragmede 3mo ago
        To each their own. Would you rather live a long boring safe life, or a fast short exciting one? You decide!
        bluefirebrand 3mo ago
        I want to live forever Not to be rich or famous or powerful. I just want to see where it all goes. I want to see the heights humanity reaches. I want to set foot on other planets, I wish I could see the universe That's way more exciting to me than doing the kind of shit that leads to a "fast short life"
        NateEag 3mo ago
        If people live lives wherein they build important societal systems to be biased towards "short fast exciting" lives, the opportunity to live a long, boring, safe one may just evaporate.
    - nearlyepic 3mo ago
      "drunk driving helps people get home from the bar. why focus on the negative?"
      - fragmede 3mo ago
        Don't drive drunk. I'm pro self-driving cars.
        slopinthebag 3mo ago
        But people have fun and whimsy and their life is improved by drunk driving. Why focus on the negative?
        fragmede 3mo ago
        [flagged]
    - yuye 3mo ago
      Loads of people do cocaine and have "fun and whimsy" and I'm willing to bet there are even a few out there that have had their life improved by cocaine. Why focus on the negative?
    - aakresearch 3mo ago
      If the life of everyone (all 8 billion people) is improved by tech by some margin (pick the margin - 10%, 1%, 0.1%) at the cost of x people (pick the x - a thousand, a million, a billion) being killed by the same tech - is it still positive or negative? How do you even reason about it?
      - fragmede 3mo ago
        Fortunately, I'm not actually in charge of anything. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. There are some real life trolly problems out there that I'm glad I don't have to answer. https://neal.fun/absurd-trolley-problems/ https://neal.fun/absurd-trolley-problems/ But yeah if you want to put it in a spreadsheet, what numbers do you want for it to work out? Because I'm using a smartphone to access the Internet and post here, which means I have no idea how much human misery went into my being able to do that. Someone has died to make my totally average smartphone came to be in my hands. LLMs are nothing new under capitalism.
        aakresearch 3mo ago
        I think we are in full agreement. Likewise, I am not in charge of any practical matter, and glad I don't have to answer to any moral or physical dilemma. The link is fun :). My kill count was 75. I was hinting at full impossibility to quantify those problems. Starting with un-define-ability (sorry, English is not my native tongue) of the very term "need" upon which the predicate "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Maybe that is why I am leaning towards "deontological" resolution of trolley problems, rather than "utilitarian". As for LLMs, I use them and benefit from them. For fun, and hopefully for profit too. But if I had a lever I could pull to make this tech disappear - I would not hesitate one second, deontology be damned. Even better if smartphones suddenly follow too.
  - dinkleberg 3mo ago
    But there is a much higher chance of getting killed by any number of other concerns like by a drunk driver. Putting that one on the list of things to stress about seems unwarranted.
    - yuye 3mo ago
      The difference is that drunk driving stocks aren't at an all-time high.
    - slopinthebag 3mo ago
      I'm gonna get a bag tonight, after all I have a much higher chance of getting killed by any number of other concerns anyways.
- mc3301 3mo ago
  Hmm... I think the majority of people working jobs are mostly just there "for the paychecks." It'd be rather beautiful if all jobs were purely passion driven, but that is simply not the case. Nor could it be. And yeah, there are programmers with jobs that are mostly driven by passion, but most would pack it up and go home immediately if there was a sudden "we have stopped paying you" announcement.
  - cindyllm 3mo ago
    [dead]
  - sodapopcan 3mo ago
    > Hmm... I think the majority of people working jobs are mostly just there "for the paychecks." And the majority of software is terrible so ya. Life is generally unfortunate.
  - jp0d 3mo ago
    Why else would you "work", if it weren't for the pay cheques to support yourself and your family?
    - jdashg 3mo ago
      Because I believed in the product! (Firefox, in my case)
      - jp0d 3mo ago
        May I ask what do you do to financially support yourself, if the gig at Firefox is pro bono?
  - zamadatix 3mo ago
    There is a large canyon between "just their for the paycheck" and "primarily there for the paycheck". Most have _something_ about their job they enjoy, it's just not usually enough to be the top reason for having the job.
  - 3mo ago
- bobthebob 3mo ago
  So - most of human society?
- jp0d 3mo ago
  I think greedy execs are a much bigger problem than "The people just here for the paychecks".

by Bratmon 3mo ago

teaearlgraycold 3mo ago

[flagged]

slopinthebag 3mo ago
In every industry, and we wonder why everything is being enshittified. I'm not looking forward to using computers or technology over the next decade. There is a non-zero chance myself or a loved one is killed because of vibe coding.
- fragmede 3mo ago
  There's also a non zero chance that someone in your life is going to have fun and whimsy and their life improved by vibe coding. Why focus on the negative?
  - QwenGlazer9000 3mo ago
    Are you fr?
  - slopinthebag 3mo ago
    Yes who cares if they die as long as they had some fun and whimsy first! :P Edit: fr though I have plenty of fun and whimsy without needing vibe coded apps and I'd prefer a 911 call didn't get routed to Burger King because someone vibe coded the comm stack...
    - esseph 3mo ago
      We're all going to die. Have your fun and whimsy.
    - fragmede 3mo ago
      To each their own. Would you rather live a long boring safe life, or a fast short exciting one? You decide!
      - bluefirebrand 3mo ago
        I want to live forever Not to be rich or famous or powerful. I just want to see where it all goes. I want to see the heights humanity reaches. I want to set foot on other planets, I wish I could see the universe That's way more exciting to me than doing the kind of shit that leads to a "fast short life"
      - NateEag 3mo ago
        If people live lives wherein they build important societal systems to be biased towards "short fast exciting" lives, the opportunity to live a long, boring, safe one may just evaporate.
  - nearlyepic 3mo ago
    "drunk driving helps people get home from the bar. why focus on the negative?"
    - fragmede 3mo ago
      Don't drive drunk. I'm pro self-driving cars.
      - slopinthebag 3mo ago
        But people have fun and whimsy and their life is improved by drunk driving. Why focus on the negative?
        fragmede 3mo ago
        [flagged]
  - yuye 3mo ago
    Loads of people do cocaine and have "fun and whimsy" and I'm willing to bet there are even a few out there that have had their life improved by cocaine. Why focus on the negative?
  - aakresearch 3mo ago
    If the life of everyone (all 8 billion people) is improved by tech by some margin (pick the margin - 10%, 1%, 0.1%) at the cost of x people (pick the x - a thousand, a million, a billion) being killed by the same tech - is it still positive or negative? How do you even reason about it?
    - fragmede 3mo ago
      Fortunately, I'm not actually in charge of anything. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. There are some real life trolly problems out there that I'm glad I don't have to answer. https://neal.fun/absurd-trolley-problems/ https://neal.fun/absurd-trolley-problems/ But yeah if you want to put it in a spreadsheet, what numbers do you want for it to work out? Because I'm using a smartphone to access the Internet and post here, which means I have no idea how much human misery went into my being able to do that. Someone has died to make my totally average smartphone came to be in my hands. LLMs are nothing new under capitalism.
      - aakresearch 3mo ago
        I think we are in full agreement. Likewise, I am not in charge of any practical matter, and glad I don't have to answer to any moral or physical dilemma. The link is fun :). My kill count was 75. I was hinting at full impossibility to quantify those problems. Starting with un-define-ability (sorry, English is not my native tongue) of the very term "need" upon which the predicate "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Maybe that is why I am leaning towards "deontological" resolution of trolley problems, rather than "utilitarian". As for LLMs, I use them and benefit from them. For fun, and hopefully for profit too. But if I had a lever I could pull to make this tech disappear - I would not hesitate one second, deontology be damned. Even better if smartphones suddenly follow too.
- dinkleberg 3mo ago
  But there is a much higher chance of getting killed by any number of other concerns like by a drunk driver. Putting that one on the list of things to stress about seems unwarranted.
  - yuye 3mo ago
    The difference is that drunk driving stocks aren't at an all-time high.
  - slopinthebag 3mo ago
    I'm gonna get a bag tonight, after all I have a much higher chance of getting killed by any number of other concerns anyways.
mc3301 3mo ago
Hmm... I think the majority of people working jobs are mostly just there "for the paychecks." It'd be rather beautiful if all jobs were purely passion driven, but that is simply not the case. Nor could it be. And yeah, there are programmers with jobs that are mostly driven by passion, but most would pack it up and go home immediately if there was a sudden "we have stopped paying you" announcement.
- cindyllm 3mo ago
  [dead]
- sodapopcan 3mo ago
  > Hmm... I think the majority of people working jobs are mostly just there "for the paychecks." And the majority of software is terrible so ya. Life is generally unfortunate.
- jp0d 3mo ago
  Why else would you "work", if it weren't for the pay cheques to support yourself and your family?
  - jdashg 3mo ago
    Because I believed in the product! (Firefox, in my case)
    - jp0d 3mo ago
      May I ask what do you do to financially support yourself, if the gig at Firefox is pro bono?
- zamadatix 3mo ago
  There is a large canyon between "just their for the paycheck" and "primarily there for the paycheck". Most have _something_ about their job they enjoy, it's just not usually enough to be the top reason for having the job.
- 3mo ago
bobthebob 3mo ago
So - most of human society?
jp0d 3mo ago
I think greedy execs are a much bigger problem than "The people just here for the paychecks".