| |
| ▲ | dbalatero 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Thank you for writing what I want to scream every time a comparison is made to some archaic technology change. | |
| ▲ | jvanderbot 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Its advertised as outsourcing thinking, but I doubt many serious people making serious things actually outsourced their thinking very much. I definitely outsource my typing, search, and LSP interaction! | |
| ▲ | joe_mamba 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >LLM/AI is about outsourcing thinking. No it isn't. I still do the thinking on how to solve my problems, I only outsource the tedious part, which is typing the code and fixing the syntax errors till it all compiles and does what I want. If you also outsource thinking to it, that's your choice though. Or the company's choice. But ultimately the free market will deiced with products made using LLMs outcompete those made without. | | |
| ▲ | cryo32 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It shouldn't be used for that either. The problem is our programming languages and tools are shit so we made another expensive tool to drive them. I've said this elsewhere before but I single-handedly produced more actual tangible business value with Microsoft Access than anything else since. What was an hour's work is now a procurement process and thousands of lines of tedious configuration and boilerplate that involves pipelines and tens of services all coordinated and hosted by someone who has created a moat to extract money out of me. All I want is a fucking report. The LLM makes us blind to the gigantic fucking shit show we built. | | |
| ▲ | jonatron 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Recently, I had some data for which I wanted some graphs. I uploaded the .jsonl file, and prompted "make a html page and graph this data using plotly". I wanted a report, and got a report, quicker than I could have made it myself. |
| |
| ▲ | ethin 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I still do the thinking on how to solve my problems, I only outsource the tedious part, which is typing the code and fixing the syntax errors till it all compiles and does what I want. Do you really though? Here's a question: how many times do you visit claude.ai or open Claude Code (or whatever harness you use) (or use whatever model you prefer) to help you solve a problem, ask it a question, etc.? One thing I've noticed, which seems to go completely unmentioned, is how these LLM tools are like drugs. It can pump out thousands of lines of code ---> it can write my entire program for me ---> I've written quite a few programs with it and I don't write a single line anymore ---> I go to it for what would normally be things I could do on my own. The problem is that this isn't some immediate thing: like a drug, it sneaks up on you and you don't even realize it until it's far, far too late. I've been programming since I was 13 and I've just now started to notice the deskilling that's been happening to me. I've just now started noticing how often I'll visit Claude Web for something I should be able to do on my own. Nobody really seems to mention this, or it's repharsed as a good thing. And I don't get it: how is undergoing cognitive surrender a "good" thing by any metric other than the metric a beancounter would use? What worries me is that I fear this is happening to way, way more people than those who actually bring it up, potentially yourself included, and you just haven't yet realized it because you haven't really thought about it. That is ultimately what this "AI revolution" is going to bring. It's what the billionaires want, and what they want is usually what they get because the systems we've built are set up to not constrain them. |
| |
| ▲ | wolvesechoes 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Moreover, historical events and processes are unique, even if there are some similarities. Nothing that happened in the past can give us certainty on what will happen now. | |
| ▲ | satisfice 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It’s worse— it’s seeking to replace every single aspect of what it means to be YOU in the world. Some people are literally trying to “fire themselves” and be replaced with digital twins. Perhaps those people are independently wealthy and also have no need of human connection? For the rest of us, it is a sickening prospect. AI is automated irresponsibility, and it is nothing like any earlier transition. When a technology trend means people literally won’t be able to tell if you are living or dead, and also stop caring about the difference— that’s unprecedented in the history of humans. |
|
| |
| ▲ | joe_mamba 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | >while the poor people are essentially just as poor they were hundreds of years ago. How can people say false things like this with a straight face? Thanks to industrialisation, automation and mass production, the poor of today have access to things that even kings from hundreds of years ago couldn't even fathom, let alone poor people back then: abundant cheap food that poor people can now be fat instead of starve to death, cars, planes, MRI machines, helicopter ambulances, vaccines, personal heating and air conditioning, OZEMPIC, etc Kings back then would eat hard bread, shit down a vertical shaft that emitted the scent through the whole castle, and their sleeping chambers had ice on the walls in winter and lice in the clothes and bet sheets, plus they had parasites in their gut and any small disease could kill you. Meanwhile the cool homeless guy outside my building has 3 hot meals a day and a daily shower in the homeless shelter nearby, warm clean sleeping bag for winter, shades for summer, a bicycle for moving around town, a smartphone which he uses to watch youtube all day in his sleeping bag, plus access to medical care that kings of kings never had. All this with no job, and no care in the world. | | |
| ▲ | samiv 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Because most of the poor people in the world (majority of the population of the planet actually) have no access to clean water, food or medical care or education and that is the same as it was hundreds of years ago. | | |
| ▲ | joe_mamba 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | They get food, water infrastructure and medical aid from foreign aid. And then a local warlord steals the food and destroys the water infrastructure, to enslave them, just like hundreds of years ago. If you lack the foundational values to self organize as a functioning society, then it's just gonna be like that for a long time. |
| |
| ▲ | clsdvd 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Mainly all due to what is the spiritual successor to slave labor, not industrialization. You can thank people dying in Chinese and African mines to extract the resources to build your planes and MRI machines. You can thank the people working tirelessly until their hands are crippled in bengladesh to make the cheap clothes that make it seem to your western eyes that a poor person here can live a life of luxury. Those people are constantly invisibilised even as tragedies such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rana_Plaza_collapse hit them and kills a thousand under your total westoid apathy. You can thank the Chinese slave labor making iPhones and Macbooks at foxconn for your luxurious electronics being cheap enough for a western wallet. They have suicide prevention nets so that their precious slave labor doesn't die from jumping from their buildings. How amazing. >the poor of today have access to things that even kings from hundreds of years ago couldn't even fathom Indeed, the wealth that kings couldn't dream of hundreds of years ago, because kings back then didn't have the power a billionaire can wield today to pollute, enslave and ruin millions of lives at a scale that makes things like the Napoleon wars look like a footnote to history. >All this with no job, and no care in the world. This can only happen because the extreme wealth inequality of the world has divided entire countries into classes of people. You are blind to the reality of the humans you are exploiting. | | |
| ▲ | joe_mamba 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >Mainly all due to what is the spiritual successor to slave labor, not industrialization. Firstly, industrialization is what led to the abolishment of slavery in the west, because owning machines was making you more money than slaves, and it was the west who fought the seas to stop slavery internationally, to the disappointment of slave owners in Africa who were enslaving their own people before the western slave trade began. So you can stop blaming the west for slavery now. The age of English and Dutch slave trade boats is long gone, we don't have MRI machines because of slaves. >Those people are constantly invisibilised even as tragedies such as 100% nobody cares because they have their own government who is accountable to them. What should other countries do about it when it's their own government killing them. I also don't expect other countries to care about the deaths and issues in my country since our politicians are to blame, not foreigners. People care about their immediate family members, they don't care about random people on the other side of the planet dying in some domestic accident. It's just how it is. >You can thank the Chinese slave labor making iPhones and Macbooks at foxconn for your luxurious electronics being cheap enough for a western wallet. Just a couple of days ago there was a post here on the front page of shipping a used Macbook from Australia to a student in Ghana. It's precisely because western investments in technology and Chinese mines and sweatshop factories that people in countries like Ghana can have cheap laptops and cheap smartphones to access the internet and gain higher education for well paying IT jobs on the international market. So thank you and you're welcome. >This can only happen because the extreme wealth inequality of the world has divided entire countries into classes of people. Humans were always divided into classes of people ever since human species existed, they were never equal and they never will be equal, this is a human trait, not something billionaires created, they were just the best today at rising to the top within this human inequality system that has always existed and will always exist. Need I remind you communism also existed based on the ideals of equalizing everyone, and so everyone was equally poor except of course the ruling elites, while also having no MRI machines. | | |
| ▲ | samiv an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | "Humans were always divided into classes of people ever since human species existed, they were never equal and they never will be equal, this is a human trait, not something billionaires created, they were just the best today at rising to the top within this human inequality system that has always existed and will always exist." Woah the air is thick with BS. Just because someone is rich doesn't mean they're better smarter hard working or anything more than anyone else. They've just had particular circumstances in their lives. Most societies are not truly meritocratic where the most competent and skilled people would succeed. This is not the determining factor. Education is a great example of this when in many countries not everyone has equal access to education. People do not have equal access to resources or networks or support structures to become entrepreneurs. To start a business or to study or to become whatever they could be. Eventually People may not be equal or have equal skills and talents and that's fine but everyone should have an equal opportunity. | |
| ▲ | wolvesechoes an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Did they teach history where you're from? Humans were always divided into classes of people ever since human species existed, they were never equal and they never will be equal, this is a human trait, not something billionaires created, they were just the best at rising to the top within this human inequality system that has always existed. If anyone could use a history or anthropology lesson, it is you. What you stated is simply not true, and we have plenty of ethnographical and archeological evidence for that. You simply repeat ideology of the current times. Last but not least, your parent speaks of dividing whole countries into classes. I don't know what billionaires have to do with it. | | |
| ▲ | joe_mamba an hour ago | parent [-] | | >What you stated is simply not true, and we have plenty of ethnographical and archeological evidence for that. Can you post some of that evidence? How many MRI machines and missions to the moon, did those "egalitarian" civilizations develop? |
|
| |
| ▲ | card_zero 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | So which do you mean: 1. None of that is necessary to having planes and MRI machines, so what you're replying to is basically correct, or 2. We should rouse ourselves from apathy in order to give up planes and MRI machines, and even out the poverty, which is eternal. |
| |
| ▲ | wiseowise 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > All this with no job, and no care in the world. Have you ever been without a job and/or homeless to say shit like this? | | |
| ▲ | joe_mamba 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | yes. Have you? Also, how nice of you to ignore my entire argument on how the poor today are NOT as poor as they were hundreds of years ago, and instead sidetrack the conversation one offtopic tangent for a cheap jab in the name of scoring some emotional virtue signaling brownie points. |
| |
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | wolvesechoes 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Thanks to industrialisation, automation and mass production, the poor of today have access to things that even kings from hundreds of years ago couldn't even fathom Thanks to colonialism, also in more modern form called globalism. > Kings back then would eat hard bread, shit down a vertical shaft that emitted the scent through the whole castle, and their sleeping chambers had ice on the walls in winter and lice in the clothes and bet sheets, plus they had parasites in their gut and any small disease could kill you. Wealth has no intrinsic value, only relative one. You are only wealthy relatively to other members of the society. Doesn't matter if pharaohs had less comfortable lives than me. What matters is that a gap between pharaoh and a worker working on pyramids was way smaller than between Jeff Bezos and person working at the Amazon distribution center. Also, most sweet fruits of progress that its prophets like to enumerate are not direct consequences of technological changes, but they came only after political struggle that has arisen exactly because the direct consequences were very dire for most people. If people pushing today for AI could decide on these things, they would be very happy to take away these hot meals from homeless people and let them starve to death. | | |
| ▲ | joe_mamba 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | >Thanks to colonialism, also in more modern form called globalism. You don't have to participate in globalism, you can be a hermit state that doesn't trade with the evil imperial capitalists, like Cuba and North Korea. Everyone wants to live there because the QoL is so good. | | |
| ▲ | wolvesechoes an hour ago | parent [-] | | And it so good, because west extracted wealth and materials from all around the world places, and still extracts through globalisation. QoL is so good here precisely because it is so poor out there. | | |
| ▲ | joe_mamba an hour ago | parent [-] | | >because west extracted wealth and materials from all around the world places If those "around the world places" had all the valuable resources that enabled modern civilisation when the west came and took them, why weren't they the ones to first make use of them to build computers, vaccines, MR machines and moon rockets, or at least clean drinking water and indoor sanitation facilities for their people? Or why didn't those "around the world places" then go and extract wealth and materials from the west instead? What stopped them? Surely it wasn't their moral values, since war, slavery and genocide even cannibalism, of their neighboring tribes and nations, was the norm of the day over there. >and still extracts through globalisation Correction: "pays for it through globalisation". That's how countries like India and China got so many people out of poverty after globalisation. |
|
|
|
|
|
