3 ms·

You're moving the goal posts and your true nature is leaking. You get to decide what too much suffering is for others, because you won't have to face any of it

You're moving the goal posts and your true nature is leaking. You get to decide what too much suffering is for others, because you won't have to face any of it and monstrously will continue to refuse to care about how your chasing a shiny toy hurts other people. Losing a job due to AI is suffering, it causes hardship and stress. 1. Oracle, Block, Ford, Cloudflare, Salesforce and others' CEOs have explicitly stated that they did layoffs because of AI 2. This isn't needed for "causes suffering" but since the jobless rate is growing and job growth is low or negative the last year or so, there are people who can't get a job because the candidate pool has grown. Even if a laid off person can get another job, it certainly contributes to someone being left out of work. Furhter even if they can get another job - do you have evidence that the new job is equivalent or better to the one they lost? 3. I never claimed bankruptcy. You're trying to say that people struggling to make ends meet having to struggle harder to reach the same result isn't a problem since they aren't bankrupt. It's an absurd position because bankruptcy isn't the definition of hardship. Furhter I never claimed the worst has happened. I'm trying to prevent the bad, not just "the worst". Your seeming position is "if its not the worst outcome, its not bad, who cares that we hurt a lot of people since we could have hurt them worse". Again, it's a deplorable position and the type of thing you should wish for yourself and your children before you wish it on others.

otterley 2mo ago
When I look at issues like this, I balance benefits against costs, like any reasonable person should, and I try to do so as neutrally as I can. Using emotionally-charged verbiage like "chasing a shiny toy" and "deplorable" isn't helping your case and makes you sound frankly unhinged. There are substantive, realizable benefits from using AI. Over the past few days alone, it has played a significant role in helping me both identify and fix a thorny issue in a major open source project that 1/will see a fix soon that every user will benefit from and 2/will unblock a major initiative at my company. It has also greatly assisted me in my personal and professional life in other ways, like improving my communications (directionally, modulo AI slop that's still a problem), planning vacations with my family, and doing home improvement projects and my hobbies. > Oracle, Block, Ford, Cloudflare, Salesforce and others' CEOs have explicitly stated that they did layoffs because of AI They've said so, which I fully admit, but I don't believe them. AI is a convenient pretext that makes their investors happy, and it's a preferable excuse to some audiences over admitting they hired the wrong people or embarked on the wrong initiatives. Where AI taketh, it also giveth: there are new jobs, too. Competent SREs and service architects, at least, are busier than ever. > the jobless rate is growing and job growth is low or negative the last year or so How much of that is attributable to AI? How do you know? > I'm trying to prevent the bad, not just "the worst" You can't always prevent the bad. Every technological development has caused some jobs to be lost or some people to be inconvenienced or displaced, from the Industrial Revolution to "computers" (who were once human beings). When there is unquestionable value in these changes, they're simply unstoppable, and society is unquestionably better off as a whole. Perhaps not immediately, but in the long term. Yes, this sometimes puts a toll on the individual. We should support them when this happens via a social safety net. But we shouldn't try to halt progress instead. It's like trying to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
- sophacles 2mo ago
  Of course you deem the costs acceptable because you don't have to pay them. The word deplorable means: deserving condemnation and contempt. And frankly, I can't think of anything more deserving of contempt than a person willing to accept the harm to others for a slight increase in convenience. > Yes, this sometimes puts a toll on the individual. We should support them when this happens via a social safety net. But we shouldn't try to halt progress instead. It's like trying to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig. The social safety net is being actively dismantled by the same people building your toys. Reasonable approaches to some of these problems, like requiring solar arrays sufficient to power the datacenters (or more) or equivalent clean energy - are actively opposed by the people who are building the datacenters. Open and transparent local government is being shut down by NDAs and bribes from these datacenter builders in exchange for local tax subsidies. You'd see a lot less opposition to these things if there was a reasonable assurance that the harm was "change for some people" rather than "reduction in quality of life and increased expenses for some people". I think very few people are fundamentally opposed to datacenters, they are opposed to the actions being taken right now in the real world to put them up and not compensate people for the damages they cause. If there was anyone putting up datacenters in a way that actually addressed people's concerns in a reasonable way, that didn't force the population to pay for some rich guy to get rich off toys for people who are OK putting the cost on others... well I would be fine with it. Unfortunately that's not the situation we currently have and I will continue to oppose this. See I think the companies and sick fucks who support them should actually earn their income and compensate fairly for it, not just buy governments to force others to bear the costs while they get the benefits.
  - otterley 2mo ago
    We agree that clean energy and social safety sets are worth demanding and preserving. Externalities are a real problem and yes, they need to be compensated for. > And frankly, I can't think of anything more deserving of contempt than a person willing to accept the harm to others for a slight increase in convenience. Before you claim moral high ground here, you should take a good hard look at yourself and all the conveniences you enjoy and make sure you're absolutely consistent with this principle. I'll bet you'll find that you're not.

otterley 2mo ago

When I look at issues like this, I balance benefits against costs, like any reasonable person should, and I try to do so as neutrally as I can. Using emotionally-charged verbiage like "chasing a shiny toy" and "deplorable" isn't helping your case and makes you sound frankly unhinged. There are substantive, realizable benefits from using AI. Over the past few days alone, it has played a significant role in helping me both identify and fix a thorny issue in a major open source project that 1/will see a fix soon that every user will benefit from and 2/will unblock a major initiative at my company. It has also greatly assisted me in my personal and professional life in other ways, like improving my communications (directionally, modulo AI slop that's still a problem), planning vacations with my family, and doing home improvement projects and my hobbies. > Oracle, Block, Ford, Cloudflare, Salesforce and others' CEOs have explicitly stated that they did layoffs because of AI They've said so, which I fully admit, but I don't believe them. AI is a convenient pretext that makes their investors happy, and it's a preferable excuse to some audiences over admitting they hired the wrong people or embarked on the wrong initiatives. Where AI taketh, it also giveth: there are new jobs, too. Competent SREs and service architects, at least, are busier than ever. > the jobless rate is growing and job growth is low or negative the last year or so How much of that is attributable to AI? How do you know? > I'm trying to prevent the bad, not just "the worst" You can't always prevent the bad. Every technological development has caused some jobs to be lost or some people to be inconvenienced or displaced, from the Industrial Revolution to "computers" (who were once human beings). When there is unquestionable value in these changes, they're simply unstoppable, and society is unquestionably better off as a whole. Perhaps not immediately, but in the long term. Yes, this sometimes puts a toll on the individual. We should support them when this happens via a social safety net. But we shouldn't try to halt progress instead. It's like trying to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

sophacles 2mo ago
Of course you deem the costs acceptable because you don't have to pay them. The word deplorable means: deserving condemnation and contempt. And frankly, I can't think of anything more deserving of contempt than a person willing to accept the harm to others for a slight increase in convenience. > Yes, this sometimes puts a toll on the individual. We should support them when this happens via a social safety net. But we shouldn't try to halt progress instead. It's like trying to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig. The social safety net is being actively dismantled by the same people building your toys. Reasonable approaches to some of these problems, like requiring solar arrays sufficient to power the datacenters (or more) or equivalent clean energy - are actively opposed by the people who are building the datacenters. Open and transparent local government is being shut down by NDAs and bribes from these datacenter builders in exchange for local tax subsidies. You'd see a lot less opposition to these things if there was a reasonable assurance that the harm was "change for some people" rather than "reduction in quality of life and increased expenses for some people". I think very few people are fundamentally opposed to datacenters, they are opposed to the actions being taken right now in the real world to put them up and not compensate people for the damages they cause. If there was anyone putting up datacenters in a way that actually addressed people's concerns in a reasonable way, that didn't force the population to pay for some rich guy to get rich off toys for people who are OK putting the cost on others... well I would be fine with it. Unfortunately that's not the situation we currently have and I will continue to oppose this. See I think the companies and sick fucks who support them should actually earn their income and compensate fairly for it, not just buy governments to force others to bear the costs while they get the benefits.
- otterley 2mo ago
  We agree that clean energy and social safety sets are worth demanding and preserving. Externalities are a real problem and yes, they need to be compensated for. > And frankly, I can't think of anything more deserving of contempt than a person willing to accept the harm to others for a slight increase in convenience. Before you claim moral high ground here, you should take a good hard look at yourself and all the conveniences you enjoy and make sure you're absolutely consistent with this principle. I'll bet you'll find that you're not.