Why do you look forward to this happening to your intellectual pursuits?

If I grant you that cheap plentifull code will be a net boon to humanity, it's still normal to be unhappy that it's you specifically that will need to be ground-down in the cogs of progress. 5 years ago I also believed that the future could (and would!) be vastly better for many people, I just didn't know that betterment would be conditional on me losing the work I enjoy. In that sense LLM's are only a loss to me.

Many people feeling equanimous about this stuff are financially secure, later in their career or working at a manegerial level. That's fine, but at that point you're obviously not suffering the same pain as the author.

▲

pj_mukh 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think personal lament is different from organizing to stop what is good for civilization.

There is a lot of the latter happening so my comment remains relevant.

“I need to block abundance for all because I don’t feel safe with change”

is probably the most dangerous sentiment coursing through our civilization right now, and it’s coming now for me, and this is my rationalization from giving in to my baser instincts.

I’m imploring others to do the same

▲

saltcured an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I completely disagree with the way you frame this.

The "abundance" is not all positive valence. It is a flood of superficial good with an unmanaged ratio of negative byproduct mixed in.

Some of the "change" is not merely doing things a bit differently. The LLM flood is effectively attacking existing feedback and control mechanisms without any attempt to establish appropriate replacements.

I think there are several more dangerous sentiments coursing through civilization these days:

1. That people bear no moral responsibility to act in good faith, and the corollary that one can enjoy the fruits of production while externalizing all the liabilities.

2. That strategies like "move fast and break things" and "fake it until you make it" are universally applicable and appropriate, rather than only in the low-stakes entertainment/media/marketing fields where they flourished in recent decades.

3. That mere acquisition of capital gives one the right to perform N=1 experiments on global civilization, the economy, and the enviromment.

▲

Hamuko 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How are we establishing that this is good for civilisation?

	▲	pj_mukh an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Every technology revolution since the Gutenberg press has followed the same pathway? There is no evidence AI is any different. There are definitely transient upheavals as civilization adapts to the new norm and we can do much to reduce those effects. But the end result is the same, more of everything made cheaper for the working class. We are at the tail end of a 50 year productivity plateau and rising costs. We’re looking down the barrel of the first reduction in the QoL for our kids. I for one want to see what this tech has to offer.

▲

b345 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"For all" is a bit of a stretch. Abundance for a very select few. The rest remains unclear.

▲

pj_mukh 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The few already have Abundance. I don’t care about them.

I’m talking housing, infrastructure, shipping, medical care, all critical services and sectors where fixing decades of lagging productivity will help the working class the most.

▲

fwlr 2 hours ago | parent [-]

But AI is touted as the replacement for the working class? It’s TAM is “the combined wages and salaries of everyone below the C-suite” and it gets trillions of investment dollars, and letters of marque for copyright infringement and hacking, to pursue this market.

I mean, just look at the sequence of events you’re expecting here:

1. Ai companies achieve their stated goals

2. ???

3. Housing, infrastructure, medical care, etc get better for the working class

Are you the king of the underpants gnomes or something? How could it ever turn out this way? Why does anyone think it would? Am I taking crazy pills?

	▲	srdjanr 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> AI companies achieve their stated goals If those goals are fully eliminating need for human labor, then I agree it probably won't be good for most people. But that will probably take at least decades. Anything short of that, and I think economy will be pretty similar to what it is now. You still need working class and need it to be productive, so you do need them to be reasonably happy, housed, healthy, and you need good infrastructure. With lower cost for all this, why wouldn't things improve, like all times throughout history?
	▲	darkwater 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Not parent but I could image an (utopian?) society in which AI/LLM helps us develop software and hardware that can help generating better and cheaper outputs in those fields. Not saying it's going to happen but it could be a possible outcome.
	▲	pj_mukh 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		“Are you the king of the underpants gnomes or something?” No I’m just at the frontlines of this so called “replacement” and all I’m seeing is people doing more with less with no possibility of replacement. I have no idea what all this marketing pablum about TAM replacement is. All I’m seeing is growing businesses serving more people with less resources. Could it be that CEO’s of struggling businesses are lying about why they’re doing the layoffs? Why are we suddenly believing them on this one issue?

▲

dofm 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> “I need to block abundance for all because I don’t feel safe with change”

… is a pretty grotesque straw man, but sure, fight it if you want.

▲

dolebirchwood 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Why do you look forward to this happening to your intellectual pursuits?

Because he's arrived at the final stage of grief and is ready to move on.

▲

carlosjobim an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Computer code has from its inception until today wholly been about automation and thus about taking people's jobs away.

Each individual who has ever worked as a programmer has been in the business of taking away several other people's jobs.

That's why people have little empathy for programmers specifically when their jobs are taken away now by AI.

▲

xyzsparetimexyz 36 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> Computer code has from its inception until today wholly been about automation and thus about taking people's jobs away.

No it hasn't. It's been about making bomb-ass simulations and cool games and stuff.

▲

globular-toast an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That's a very, very narrow view of software. The firmware inside an internal combustion engine control unit did not take someone's job away. The software to assemble genomes from DNA fragments did take someone's job away. Nor did an MP3 codec, a game, or a search engine. All this stuff gave us more than we had before, it wasn't just automating existing capabilities.

Even when software has been used for automation it's been done to eliminate boring labour, not creative work. Eliminating jobs like switchboard operators or coal stokers is a good thing because those were unenjoyable and even dangerous jobs that nobody wants to do.

	▲	carlosjobim an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> The firmware inside an internal combustion engine control unit did not take someone's job away. Of course it did. Cars and motorcycles used to need to be taken to the mechanics all the time. Now they just run and run without issue, thanks to what you mention. > All this stuff gave us more than we had before Absolutely. Just like all automation. It takes away jobs, but increases production. That's why it's worth it in the end. > Even when software has been used for automation it's been done to eliminate boring labour, not creative work. Yes, and now AI is eliminating the boring labour of programmers. Will they come to terms with the fact that their jobs are unenjoyable and nobody actually wants to do them, like the coal stokers and switchboard operators? But I agree with you that there are some outliers within programming that go beyond automating jobs and processes. Like the examples you give.

▲

epolanski 43 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

That and the fact that people void of any skills, coding or engineering ones, could still find a six figure job.

▲

epolanski an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Programmers were all futurists, then the future came for their job.

Few years from now we'll be fighting to get a semi stable job that will pay like any other office job, and feel lucky we did.