8 ms·

Deepseek is a big deal but we should be happy not worried that our tools are improving.

bbzealot 2y ago
Why though? I'm worried these technologies may take my job away and make the balance between capital and labor even more uneven. Why should I be happy?
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  You won't be happy doing a robot's job either, at least not for long. In the ideal case, we won't be dependent on the unwilling labor of other humans at all. Would you do your current job for free? If not -- if you'd rather do something else with your productive life -- then it seems irrational to defend the status quo. One thing's for certain: ancient Marxist tropes about labor and capital don't bring any value to the table. Abandon that thinking sooner rather than later; it won't help you navigate what's coming.
  - hooverd 2y ago
    Because billionaires think that you are a horse and that the best course of action is to turn you into glue while they hope AGI lets them live forever.
    - CamperBob2 2y ago
      Billionaires don't think about you at all. That's what nobody seems to get. We enjoy many luxuries unavailable even to billionaires only a few decades ago. For this trend to continue, the same thing needs to happen in other sectors that happened in (for example) the agricultural sector over the course of the 20th century: replacement of human workers by mass automation and superior organization.
      - p_j_w 2y ago
        >Billionaires don't think about you at all. If that were true they wouldn't be building ultra secure bunkers to escape to when the climate shit hits the fan.
        inglor_cz 2y ago
        How many of them did that? Five out of a thousand? Anecdotally, around two people in a hundred in my proximity are preppers as well, though obviously with smaller budgets. It is just a specific fringe way of thinking.
      - breuleux 2y ago
        In the past, human workers were displaced. The value of their labour for certain tasks became lower than what automation could achieve, but they could still find other things to do to earn a living. What people are worrying about here is what happens when the value of human labour drops to zero, full stop. If AI becomes better to us at everything, then we will do nothing, we will earn nothing, and we will have nothing that isn't gifted to us. We will have no bargaining power, so we just have to hope the rich and powerful will like us enough to share.
        CamperBob2 2y ago
        If anything like that had actually happened in the past, you might have a point. When it comes to what happens when the value of human labor drops to zero, my guess is every bit as good as yours. I say it will be a Good Thing. "Work" is what you call whatever you're doing when you'd rather be doing something else.
        breuleux 2y ago
        The value of our labour is what enables us to acquire things and property, with which we can live and do stuff. If your labour is valueless because robots can do anything you can do better, how do you get any of the possessions you require in order to do that something else you'd rather be doing? Capitalism won't just give them to you. If you do not own land, physical resources or robots, and you can't work, how do you get food? Charity? I'd argue there will need to be a pretty comprehensive redistribution scheme for the people at large to benefit.
  - cryptopian 2y ago
    That's not historically what's happened though, is it? We've had plenty of opportunities to reduce the human workload through increased efficiency. What usually happens is people demand more - faster deliveries, more content churn; and those of us who are quite happy with what we have are either forced to adapt or get left behind while still working the same hours.
    - satvikpendem 2y ago
      Jevon's paradox really does work for everything, not just in the current way people have used it this last week in terms of GPU demand. People always demand more, and thus, there is an endless amount of work to be done.
    - esafak 2y ago
      If you really have enough, you can retire early.
      - Capricorn2481 2y ago
        We don't have enough because the productivity improvements are not shared with the working class. The wealth gap increases, people work the same. This is historically what has happened and it's what will happen with AI. The next generations will never have the opportunity to retire.
- joshmarlow 2y ago
  > make the balance between capital and labor even more uneven. I think it's interesting to note that as opens source models evolve and proliferate, the capital required for a lot of ventures goes down - which levels the playing field. When I can talk to one agent-with-a-CAD-integration and have it design a gadget for me and ship the design off to a 3D printer and then have another agent write the code to run on the gadget, I'll be able to build entire ventures that would require VC funding and a team now. When intellectual capital is democratized, financial capital looses just a bit of power...
  - toth 2y ago
    I can't understand how you reach your conclusion. At present, if you have financial capital and need intellectual capital you need to find people willing to work for you and pay them a lot of money. With enough progress in AI you can get the intellectual capital from machines instead, for a lot less. What loses value is human intellectual capital. Financial capital just gained a lot of power, it can now substitute for intellectual capital. Sure, you could pretend this means you'll be able to launch a startup without any employees, and so will everyone. But why wouldn't Sam Altman or whomever just start AI Ycombinator with hundreds of thousands of AI "founders"? Do you really think it would be more "democratic"?
    - visarga 2y ago
      > But why wouldn't Sam Altman or whomever just start AI Ycombinator with hundreds of thousands of AI "founders"? Do you really think it would be more "democratic"? AI is useful in the same way with Linux - can run locally - empowers everyone - need to bring your own problem - need to do some of the work yourself The moral is you need to bring your problem to benefit. The model by itself does not generate much benefits. This means AI benefits are distributed like open source ones.
      - toth 2y ago
        Those points are true of current AI models, but how sure are you they will remain true as technology evolves? Maybe you believe that they will always stay true, that there's some ineffable human quality that will never be captured by AI and value creation will always be bottle-necked by humans. That would be nice. But even if you still need humans in the loop, it's not clear how "democratizing" this would be. It might sound great if in a few years you and everyone else can run an AI on their laptop that is as a good as a great technical co-founder that never sleeps. But note that means that someone who owns a data-center can run the equivalent of the current entire technical staff of Google, Meta, and OpenAI combined. Doesn't sound like a very level playing field.
- bubbleRefuge 2y ago
  Think the marginal cost of developing complex software goes down thereby making it affordable to a greater market. There will still be a need for skilled software engineers to understand domains, limitations of AI, and how to harness and curate AI to develop custom apps. Maybe software engineering for the masses. Local small businesses can now maybe afford to take on custom software projects that were before unthinkable.
  - the_af 2y ago
    > There will still be a need for skilled software engineers to understand domains, limitations of AI, and how to harness and curate AI to develop custom apps. But will there be a need for fewer engineers, though? That's the question. And the competition for those who remain employed would be fierce, way worse than today. Or so I fear. I hope I'm wrong.
    - btilly 2y ago
      Jevon's Paradox says that you're probably wrong. But I'm worried about the same thing. The moat around human superiority is shrinking fast. And when it's gone, we may get more software, but will we need humans involved?
      - svara 2y ago
        AI doesn't have needs any desires, humans do. And no matter how hyped one might be about AI, we're far away from creating an artificial human. As long as that's true, AI is a tool to make humans more effective.
        boothby 2y ago
        > AI doesn't have needs any desires, humans do. I fear that this won't age well. But to shamelessly riff on Marx, those who control the means of computation will control society.
        2y ago
- jonas21 2y ago
  Do you feel the same way about open source software?
- ghxst 2y ago
  > I'm worried these technologies may take my job away The way I look at this is that with the release of something like deepseek the possibility of running a model offline and locally to work _for_ you while you are sleeping, doing groceries, spending time with your kids / family is coming closer to a reality. If AI is able to replace me one day I'll be taking advantage of that way more efficiently than any of my employee(s).
  - esafak 2y ago
    Why wouldn't your employer just hire fewer people to do it since you seem to have enough spare time to do lots of things besides work?
  - ghxst 2y ago
    Meant to say employer(s).
- llm_trw 2y ago
  The only people who think that Ai models won't result in more demand for human labour are the ones who have never used them.
weatherlite 2y ago
I think it's a mixed bag but if people want to be happy I'm not going to spoil the party!
hnthrow90348765 2y ago
This added momentum to two things: reducing AI costs and increasing quality. I don't know when the threshold of "replace the bottom X% of developers because AI is so good" happens for businesses based on those things, but it's definitely getting closer instead of stalling out like the bubble predictors claimed. It's not a bubble if the industry is making progress like this.

Why though? I'm worried these technologies may take my job away and make the balance between capital and labor even more uneven. Why should I be happy?

CamperBob2 2y ago
You won't be happy doing a robot's job either, at least not for long. In the ideal case, we won't be dependent on the unwilling labor of other humans at all. Would you do your current job for free? If not -- if you'd rather do something else with your productive life -- then it seems irrational to defend the status quo. One thing's for certain: ancient Marxist tropes about labor and capital don't bring any value to the table. Abandon that thinking sooner rather than later; it won't help you navigate what's coming.
- hooverd 2y ago
  Because billionaires think that you are a horse and that the best course of action is to turn you into glue while they hope AGI lets them live forever.
  - CamperBob2 2y ago
    Billionaires don't think about you at all. That's what nobody seems to get. We enjoy many luxuries unavailable even to billionaires only a few decades ago. For this trend to continue, the same thing needs to happen in other sectors that happened in (for example) the agricultural sector over the course of the 20th century: replacement of human workers by mass automation and superior organization.
    - p_j_w 2y ago
      >Billionaires don't think about you at all. If that were true they wouldn't be building ultra secure bunkers to escape to when the climate shit hits the fan.
      - inglor_cz 2y ago
        How many of them did that? Five out of a thousand? Anecdotally, around two people in a hundred in my proximity are preppers as well, though obviously with smaller budgets. It is just a specific fringe way of thinking.
    - breuleux 2y ago
      In the past, human workers were displaced. The value of their labour for certain tasks became lower than what automation could achieve, but they could still find other things to do to earn a living. What people are worrying about here is what happens when the value of human labour drops to zero, full stop. If AI becomes better to us at everything, then we will do nothing, we will earn nothing, and we will have nothing that isn't gifted to us. We will have no bargaining power, so we just have to hope the rich and powerful will like us enough to share.
      - CamperBob2 2y ago
        If anything like that had actually happened in the past, you might have a point. When it comes to what happens when the value of human labor drops to zero, my guess is every bit as good as yours. I say it will be a Good Thing. "Work" is what you call whatever you're doing when you'd rather be doing something else.
        breuleux 2y ago
        The value of our labour is what enables us to acquire things and property, with which we can live and do stuff. If your labour is valueless because robots can do anything you can do better, how do you get any of the possessions you require in order to do that something else you'd rather be doing? Capitalism won't just give them to you. If you do not own land, physical resources or robots, and you can't work, how do you get food? Charity? I'd argue there will need to be a pretty comprehensive redistribution scheme for the people at large to benefit.
- cryptopian 2y ago
  That's not historically what's happened though, is it? We've had plenty of opportunities to reduce the human workload through increased efficiency. What usually happens is people demand more - faster deliveries, more content churn; and those of us who are quite happy with what we have are either forced to adapt or get left behind while still working the same hours.
  - satvikpendem 2y ago
    Jevon's paradox really does work for everything, not just in the current way people have used it this last week in terms of GPU demand. People always demand more, and thus, there is an endless amount of work to be done.
  - esafak 2y ago
    If you really have enough, you can retire early.
    - Capricorn2481 2y ago
      We don't have enough because the productivity improvements are not shared with the working class. The wealth gap increases, people work the same. This is historically what has happened and it's what will happen with AI. The next generations will never have the opportunity to retire.
joshmarlow 2y ago
> make the balance between capital and labor even more uneven. I think it's interesting to note that as opens source models evolve and proliferate, the capital required for a lot of ventures goes down - which levels the playing field. When I can talk to one agent-with-a-CAD-integration and have it design a gadget for me and ship the design off to a 3D printer and then have another agent write the code to run on the gadget, I'll be able to build entire ventures that would require VC funding and a team now. When intellectual capital is democratized, financial capital looses just a bit of power...
- toth 2y ago
  I can't understand how you reach your conclusion. At present, if you have financial capital and need intellectual capital you need to find people willing to work for you and pay them a lot of money. With enough progress in AI you can get the intellectual capital from machines instead, for a lot less. What loses value is human intellectual capital. Financial capital just gained a lot of power, it can now substitute for intellectual capital. Sure, you could pretend this means you'll be able to launch a startup without any employees, and so will everyone. But why wouldn't Sam Altman or whomever just start AI Ycombinator with hundreds of thousands of AI "founders"? Do you really think it would be more "democratic"?
  - visarga 2y ago
    > But why wouldn't Sam Altman or whomever just start AI Ycombinator with hundreds of thousands of AI "founders"? Do you really think it would be more "democratic"? AI is useful in the same way with Linux - can run locally - empowers everyone - need to bring your own problem - need to do some of the work yourself The moral is you need to bring your problem to benefit. The model by itself does not generate much benefits. This means AI benefits are distributed like open source ones.
    - toth 2y ago
      Those points are true of current AI models, but how sure are you they will remain true as technology evolves? Maybe you believe that they will always stay true, that there's some ineffable human quality that will never be captured by AI and value creation will always be bottle-necked by humans. That would be nice. But even if you still need humans in the loop, it's not clear how "democratizing" this would be. It might sound great if in a few years you and everyone else can run an AI on their laptop that is as a good as a great technical co-founder that never sleeps. But note that means that someone who owns a data-center can run the equivalent of the current entire technical staff of Google, Meta, and OpenAI combined. Doesn't sound like a very level playing field.
bubbleRefuge 2y ago
Think the marginal cost of developing complex software goes down thereby making it affordable to a greater market. There will still be a need for skilled software engineers to understand domains, limitations of AI, and how to harness and curate AI to develop custom apps. Maybe software engineering for the masses. Local small businesses can now maybe afford to take on custom software projects that were before unthinkable.
- the_af 2y ago
  > There will still be a need for skilled software engineers to understand domains, limitations of AI, and how to harness and curate AI to develop custom apps. But will there be a need for fewer engineers, though? That's the question. And the competition for those who remain employed would be fierce, way worse than today. Or so I fear. I hope I'm wrong.
  - btilly 2y ago
    Jevon's Paradox says that you're probably wrong. But I'm worried about the same thing. The moat around human superiority is shrinking fast. And when it's gone, we may get more software, but will we need humans involved?
    - svara 2y ago
      AI doesn't have needs any desires, humans do. And no matter how hyped one might be about AI, we're far away from creating an artificial human. As long as that's true, AI is a tool to make humans more effective.
      - boothby 2y ago
        > AI doesn't have needs any desires, humans do. I fear that this won't age well. But to shamelessly riff on Marx, those who control the means of computation will control society.
        2y ago
jonas21 2y ago
Do you feel the same way about open source software?
ghxst 2y ago
> I'm worried these technologies may take my job away The way I look at this is that with the release of something like deepseek the possibility of running a model offline and locally to work _for_ you while you are sleeping, doing groceries, spending time with your kids / family is coming closer to a reality. If AI is able to replace me one day I'll be taking advantage of that way more efficiently than any of my employee(s).
- esafak 2y ago
  Why wouldn't your employer just hire fewer people to do it since you seem to have enough spare time to do lots of things besides work?
- ghxst 2y ago
  Meant to say employer(s).
llm_trw 2y ago
The only people who think that Ai models won't result in more demand for human labour are the ones who have never used them.

weatherlite 2y ago

I think it's a mixed bag but if people want to be happy I'm not going to spoil the party!

hnthrow90348765 2y ago

This added momentum to two things: reducing AI costs and increasing quality. I don't know when the threshold of "replace the bottom X% of developers because AI is so good" happens for businesses based on those things, but it's definitely getting closer instead of stalling out like the bubble predictors claimed. It's not a bubble if the industry is making progress like this.