Homie you’ve been around here long enough to know that that is exactly the case
Software developers view themselves as an entirely different class than skilled blue-collar laborers precisely because of their access to capital
It is explicitly because a single engineer can go out and get money from a capitalist and a single machine shop operator cannot go out and get money from a capitalist that makes the distinction
People wonder why software developers are anti-union it’s because they are fundamentally capitalist at heart
The vast vast vast majority of programmers do not have access to capital.
But they eat up the propaganda about how they totally could just happen to get that capital and run a one man software business and make a billion dollars.
Which is why they spent all that time and energy insisting they didn't have to unionize, because they were super important and could totally negotiate better than anyone else, especially a giant group of programmers, and now are panicking because dumb middle managers want to replace them with LLMs entirely.
Every single person who utilizes a navigation application to traverse a place that they have no previous independently verified experience, is taking existential risk based on a computer telling them what to do
There are literally thousands of cases of people dying or being injured because they did what a computer navigation application told them to do
This is also literally what the Target stock scheduling system does for target employees for restocking shelves
The vast majority of peoples lives are run by someone else’s computer
That’s fundamentally different, and I think you know that.
It’s one thing to ask an algorithm how to build an A* driving map from point A to point B. It’s another to ask one how to be a better person and go to Heaven.
I’m not religious, and I’m not arguing this from a pro-religion POV. I happily work in AI, and I’m not arguing this from an anti-AI POV. I am highly technical. I love computers. I’m excited about the future. I rely on deterministic algorithms to make my days better. And yet, I do not want to trust the words of an LLM to counsel me on how to be a better husband or father. At this stage, the AI does not know me in the way a counselor or advisor, or even pastor or priest would. And yes, I think that’s a crucial difference.
Sure, people die from regular programming. Mistakes happen. That’s not good or ok, but it seems unavoidable given today’s technologies and tools.
However, I think that’s in a different category than giving life advice. How is an LLM to know that God forgives Joe for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his children, but doesn’t forgive Tom for doing the same thing because Tom had money but was saving up to buy cooler shoes and didn’t want to spend it? A priest’s advice might be “Joe, don’t make a habit of it, but you didn’t hurt anyone and you children were hungry. Tom, would you freaking knock it off already?” An LLM might reply “that’s a wonderful idea!” to both.
Again, I’m firmly not anti-AI. I use it every day. I absolutely to not want to hear its advice on how to navigate the complexities of life as a human being.
It’s not fundamentally different it’s people who are taking physical actions in the real world based on trust in some system
whether it’s a human or not they’re trusting the system with their existential outcomes
That is literally exactly the same thing.
The fact that you think that the rules of you being a father are somehow different than the rules of you driving to a appointment indicate that you have a completely incoherent world view based on two incompatible models of epistemology
As usual dualists will come up with a incoherent model and then try and act like it’s valid
> The fact that you think that the rules of you being a father are somehow different than the rules of you driving to a appointment indicate that you have a completely incoherent world view based on two incompatible models of epistemology
Two ways to look at this, both of which are coherent:
1. Current AI is better at some stuff than others. Saying "I'm okay driving in a waymo, but not taking spiritual advice from an AI" makes sense if you think it has not advanced to a near-human level in the spritual advice domain.
2. Even if you don't think that's true, it's reasonable to just want a human for certain activities, because communion with other humans in the same existential boat you're in can be the whole point an activity. I'd argue it is a significant reason for a majority of social activities.
Disclaimer: raised Catholic, now Atheist, married to devout Catholic.
The Church as defined by the institution is a community. I do not see it as a contradiction that the head of the institution is instructing the leaders to not add more layers of abstraction between them and the community, especially when those messages are on the subject of what it means to be human.
> The fact that you think that the rules of you being a father are somehow different than the rules of you driving to a appointment indicate that you have a completely incoherent world view based on two incompatible models of epistemology
> looked brilliant on the quarterly earnings call. He fired all the bussers. Eliminated expeditors. Replaced kitchen managers with generic “back-of-house” roles. This was what seemed obvious at the time: Labor costs were rising, so remove labor. The savings showed up immediately.
I can only assume that the CEO and none of the management had ever actually worked front or back of house.
Anybody who has would know that eliminating expo and busers would destroy service.
This is just pure incompetence across the board, saying that it looked brilliant or obvious is the exact opposite of how it looks.
The surest sign of incompetence is somebody claiming they are forced into a requirement for perfection when the requirement is simply a basic adherence to virtue
Even if hordes of humanoids with “ice” vests start walking through the streets shooting people, the average American is still not going to wake up and do anything
The average HNer may be at least as bad as the average American on this axis. Lots of big tech apologist and might makes right takes here. Also a lot of "no big deal" style downplaying of risks and externalities
> Mark my words:
The era of “Personal computing” is over
Large scale Capital is not gonna make any more investments into microelectronics going forward
Capital is incentivized to make large data centers and very high speed private Internet, not public Internet, private Internet like starlink
So the same way in the 1970s it was the main frame era and server side computing, which turned into server side rendering, which then turned into client side rendering which culminated in the era of the private computer in your home and then finally in your pocket
we’re going back to server side model communication and that’s going to encompass effectively the gateway to all other information which will be increasingly compartmentalized into remote data centers and high-speed access
Looks like the ramifications of elite overproduction are starting to actually manifest everywhere!
> And while the polarizing nature of social media can perpetuate a sense of crisis and despair, these platforms are too disjointed for a unifying figure to emerge and seize power.[50] Turchin predicted that the resolution to this crisis will occur in the 2030s and will substantially change the character of the United States.[34]
Alternatively, you have the uncle Ted explanation:
We have subjugated ourselves and destroyed our autonomy and capability for individual action and fulfillment with institutions and technology. People cope for awhile until eventually it all destabilizes and goes to shit. It's also been about ~50yr since he penned the prediction that it would come to a head in 40-100yr.
And these are far from the only two theories with some very compelling arguments and lines of reasoning backing them up.
In a world full of state violence would we even have read Ted's work, would we even know the terrorists's gripes if not for their respective pinpricks of violence?
Yeah, violence is wrong, but were they wrong to choose it, I'm not so sure.
Software developers view themselves as an entirely different class than skilled blue-collar laborers precisely because of their access to capital
It is explicitly because a single engineer can go out and get money from a capitalist and a single machine shop operator cannot go out and get money from a capitalist that makes the distinction
People wonder why software developers are anti-union it’s because they are fundamentally capitalist at heart
reply