5 ms·

RSI isn't anything new though; computers have been used to make computers better for about 80 years now. Imagine having a secretary who could read 1 million re

RSI isn't anything new though; computers have been used to make computers better for about 80 years now. Imagine having a secretary who could read 1 million records and give you back your answer in 100 microseconds, for just 10 cents an hour. That's Postgres. So I'd imagine that if R&D can be automated, everything becomes better and cheaper but we'd all lose our jobs, as secretaries did to postgres. UBI season

eru 3mo ago
> Imagine having a secretary who could read 1 million records and give you back your answer in 100 microseconds, for just 10 cents an hour. That's Postgres. Well, that secretary can only answer very specific questions in a rather peculiar format. > [...] but we'd all lose our jobs, as secretaries did to postgres. I doubt many secretaries were replaced by postgres. However, you might like reading about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_record_equipment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_record_equipment
- inglor_cz 3mo ago
  "I doubt many secretaries were replaced by postgres." The maximal relative share of typists, secretaries, admin assistants et al. in the US workforce was 4% and this apogee was reached in 1980 after ~ 100 years of sustained growth. In 1980, the curve bent and started declining as systematically as it used to rise. Now it is less than half of that. So are other office roles. https://forklightning.substack.com/p/the-past-present-and-future-of-office https://forklightning.substack.com/p/the-past-present-and-fu... (Look at the "The Rise and Fall of Office Work" graph in the middle of the page.) Given the neat correlation with the tech revolution, I'd be surprised if there wasn't a causal relation. Maybe not exactly with Postgres, but with automation in general. Data collection and management does not involve nearly as many people as it once did.
  - eru 3mo ago
    > Data collection and management does not involve nearly as many people as it once did. Yes, hence my link to the cardboard fueled data processing and storage.
goatlover 3mo ago
That would be a failure of imagination when it comes to everything secretaries actually do. Which is a problem with the idea that AI is coming for all our jobs anytime soon. It totally undersells everything humans do on the job.
- ACCount37 3mo ago
  I think humans totally oversell just how special "everything they do on the job" is. "No, you don't get it, it's me specifically who has a job that's way too special to be automated away!"
  - Windchaser 3mo ago
    We could have coffee made today by automated coffee vending machines, but many people still prefer to go to a coffee shop. Why is that? Sometimes we don’t choose the cheaper automated product, and instead opt for the “human experience”. I don’t imagine this will change any time soon. Humans like being around humans.
    - ACCount37 3mo ago
      If that is true, then, why is it that the "human experience" has been on decline for decades - since the very moment it became possible to start cutting down on it? If "humans like being around humans", why does human behavior say otherwise?
      - RandomLensman 3mo ago
        What are your KPIs there? Global concert attendence is pretty high these days, for example.
        ACCount37 3mo ago
        Estimates on the count of close friendships, amount of acquaintances, dating, sexual activity, etc - all falling. People have fewer and fewer relationships, and even fewer close or intimate relationships. "Third places" are in decline, demand-induced - social activity takes place "in person" less and less, and more and more of it moves "online". If your idea of "human experience" is "close relationship in person" or "group activities offline", and not something like "a friend chat group with memes and games, most of them never met in person", "social media posting", "parasocial relationship with a streamer" or "public Minecraft and Roblox servers", then "human experience" is on decline by just about any metric available. Those aren't new trends either. They predate things like companion/roleplay AI chatbots - which seem popular with Gen Z and Gen Alpha in particular. How that new thing shakes out is still unclear, but modern AIs are probably the closest thing to a "human experience" one can get without involving a human at all. So there's even more room for the metrics to fall now - regardless of whether "hanging out in a streamer's chat" counts as "human experience" to you.
ben_w 3mo ago
> So I'd imagine that if R&D can be automated, everything becomes better and cheaper but we'd all lose our jobs, as secretaries did to postgres. UBI season Perhaps, but there's a thing in economics, the "resource curse": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse I don't have any formal training in economics, so I can't argue the for and against arguments listed in the Wikipedia page, but it is at least possible that having full automation means that the underclass gets left behind and ignored, cut out of all progress forever and without any help from UBI as we cease to be important to those who control the AI. (Even owning shares in successful AI companies may not help: Tesla doesn't pay dividends, NVIDIA's dividends are tiny).
- vatsachak 3mo ago
  The world has been getting richer as everything has gotten automated
  - ben_w 3mo ago
    Yes, but unevenly. One of the examples in the linked Wikipedia page is Dutch disease, in which the Netherlands found a lot of resources causing growth in that sector (because it could be exported) which drove up currency demand, which made other exports from the same economy uncompetitive, which caused a decline in the manufacturing sector. We could all be Detroit after the car factories left, Merthyr Tydfil when the iron and coal stopped, etc. But like I said: I don't have any formal training in economics, so I can't argue the for and against arguments with much conviction.

eru 3mo ago

> Imagine having a secretary who could read 1 million records and give you back your answer in 100 microseconds, for just 10 cents an hour. That's Postgres. Well, that secretary can only answer very specific questions in a rather peculiar format. > [...] but we'd all lose our jobs, as secretaries did to postgres. I doubt many secretaries were replaced by postgres. However, you might like reading about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_record_equipment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_record_equipment

inglor_cz 3mo ago
"I doubt many secretaries were replaced by postgres." The maximal relative share of typists, secretaries, admin assistants et al. in the US workforce was 4% and this apogee was reached in 1980 after ~ 100 years of sustained growth. In 1980, the curve bent and started declining as systematically as it used to rise. Now it is less than half of that. So are other office roles. https://forklightning.substack.com/p/the-past-present-and-future-of-office https://forklightning.substack.com/p/the-past-present-and-fu... (Look at the "The Rise and Fall of Office Work" graph in the middle of the page.) Given the neat correlation with the tech revolution, I'd be surprised if there wasn't a causal relation. Maybe not exactly with Postgres, but with automation in general. Data collection and management does not involve nearly as many people as it once did.
- eru 3mo ago
  > Data collection and management does not involve nearly as many people as it once did. Yes, hence my link to the cardboard fueled data processing and storage.

goatlover 3mo ago

That would be a failure of imagination when it comes to everything secretaries actually do. Which is a problem with the idea that AI is coming for all our jobs anytime soon. It totally undersells everything humans do on the job.

ACCount37 3mo ago
I think humans totally oversell just how special "everything they do on the job" is. "No, you don't get it, it's me specifically who has a job that's way too special to be automated away!"
- Windchaser 3mo ago
  We could have coffee made today by automated coffee vending machines, but many people still prefer to go to a coffee shop. Why is that? Sometimes we don’t choose the cheaper automated product, and instead opt for the “human experience”. I don’t imagine this will change any time soon. Humans like being around humans.
  - ACCount37 3mo ago
    If that is true, then, why is it that the "human experience" has been on decline for decades - since the very moment it became possible to start cutting down on it? If "humans like being around humans", why does human behavior say otherwise?
    - RandomLensman 3mo ago
      What are your KPIs there? Global concert attendence is pretty high these days, for example.
      - ACCount37 3mo ago
        Estimates on the count of close friendships, amount of acquaintances, dating, sexual activity, etc - all falling. People have fewer and fewer relationships, and even fewer close or intimate relationships. "Third places" are in decline, demand-induced - social activity takes place "in person" less and less, and more and more of it moves "online". If your idea of "human experience" is "close relationship in person" or "group activities offline", and not something like "a friend chat group with memes and games, most of them never met in person", "social media posting", "parasocial relationship with a streamer" or "public Minecraft and Roblox servers", then "human experience" is on decline by just about any metric available. Those aren't new trends either. They predate things like companion/roleplay AI chatbots - which seem popular with Gen Z and Gen Alpha in particular. How that new thing shakes out is still unclear, but modern AIs are probably the closest thing to a "human experience" one can get without involving a human at all. So there's even more room for the metrics to fall now - regardless of whether "hanging out in a streamer's chat" counts as "human experience" to you.

ben_w 3mo ago

> So I'd imagine that if R&D can be automated, everything becomes better and cheaper but we'd all lose our jobs, as secretaries did to postgres. UBI season Perhaps, but there's a thing in economics, the "resource curse": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse I don't have any formal training in economics, so I can't argue the for and against arguments listed in the Wikipedia page, but it is at least possible that having full automation means that the underclass gets left behind and ignored, cut out of all progress forever and without any help from UBI as we cease to be important to those who control the AI. (Even owning shares in successful AI companies may not help: Tesla doesn't pay dividends, NVIDIA's dividends are tiny).

vatsachak 3mo ago
The world has been getting richer as everything has gotten automated
- ben_w 3mo ago
  Yes, but unevenly. One of the examples in the linked Wikipedia page is Dutch disease, in which the Netherlands found a lot of resources causing growth in that sector (because it could be exported) which drove up currency demand, which made other exports from the same economy uncompetitive, which caused a decline in the manufacturing sector. We could all be Detroit after the car factories left, Merthyr Tydfil when the iron and coal stopped, etc. But like I said: I don't have any formal training in economics, so I can't argue the for and against arguments with much conviction.