|
| ▲ | PedroBatista an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| It 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 42 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I 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 9 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | You 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 4 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | The 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? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | kderbyma 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yes 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 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If 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. | | | |
| ▲ | jmye an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > If AI was beneficial, no one would profitize it What? How does that follow? |
|
|
| ▲ | overgard an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Depends 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. |
| |
| ▲ | super256 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | 200 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 43 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Has 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. | | |
| ▲ | super256 32 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I'm bootstrapping my own company, and I live off savings, so the answer is no. I don't have a salary at all. |
|
| |
| ▲ | sublinear an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I 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. |
|
|
| ▲ | jayd16 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Clearly 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 an hour ago | parent [-] | | I 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 |
|
|
| ▲ | simianwords 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Automating _my_ job is toxic. Automating other people’s and being employed as a software developer is wholesome chungus moment. |
| |
|
| ▲ | forgetfreeman an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| When did killing someone else's livelihood stop being sociopathic? |
| |
| ▲ | ttoinou 44 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Since the luddites at least | |
| ▲ | orangecat 44 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | "Computer" used to be a job title for a human. Was it sociopathic to introduce mechanical calculators because it made those jobs unnecessary? |
|
