5 ms·

Why I Won't Use AI

65 points by milen 1y ago

josefritzishere 1y ago
I tried using AI last week for some lazy research. The results were highly questionable. I asked it to cite sources. It did but those sources were even more questionable. AI has no concept of objective reality. Sometimes it is glaringlyobvious that it's just scraping 4chan and facebook and barfing up trash.
- simonw 1y ago
  Which tool and model?
- uberman 1y ago
  I was of the same mindset and did a similar test that also failed spectacularly. I asked for authoritative pros and cons on a subject in my field and asked it to cite sources. The pros and cons were ok, but the sources completely made up. So, not so great there. Then recently I had to modernize a python app written by someone who no longer works for the organization and was circa python 3.6. Several of the key libraries no longer supported the interfaces being called and there was no documentation at all. On a whim I asked an LLM to help modernize the code, file by file and it cut the effort in half. So, pretty great there.
- coro_1 1y ago
  We found AI is surprisingly good at programming (when no one thought this would be the frontier) which says a lot about the specific nature of the tools. You can for example, do minimal input (some peppered phrases) and see a rich answer. More specificity and research on your own, brings it out to play. The designs appear to level their self to your own capabilities.
- mattgreenrocks 1y ago
  LLMs are really good for things that don’t have to be 100% correct, presuming that the artifact generated is checked by someone with expertise. We used it to suggest some places to visit in Italy the past year. Great use case for AI: it brainstorms spots for an itinerary that we then check for ourselves to see if it fits our requirements. The machine helps us think beyond the usual destinations, and we vet the results. Hallucinations are not an issue. Hallucinations seem fundamental to how LLMs work now, so AI is probably still a ways off from being able to absorb responsibility for decisions like a human can. I’m sure this comment will offend both pro and anti AI camps. :)
- actuallyrizzn 1y ago
  i hate being a broken record on this, but skill issue. if you're a senior researcher that understands how to research, and you send a baby junior researcher off to do the work and did not give them tips or parameters to improve the research process, that's on you, not the junior.
bandoti 1y ago
Lots of nice thoughts that I agree with. But there is a lot of value creation in AI as well, beyond building things. For example, how can doctors save time and spend more time one-on-one with patients? Automate the time-consuming, business-y tasks and that’s a win. Not job loss but potential quality of life improvement for the doctors! And there are many understaffed industries. The balancing point will be reached. For now we are in early stages. I’m guessing it’ll take at least a decade or two for THE major breakthrough—whatever that may be. :)
- leosanchez 1y ago
  > how can doctors save time and spend more time one-on-one with patients? Do you think they will spend more time with patients or take in more patients? From what I have seen in my country they would do the latter.
  - kbelder 1y ago
    >Do you think they will spend more time with patients or take in more patients? Well, taking in more patients per doctor is what will decrease the cost for the patient (so would increasing the number of doctors). Often, I'd rather be shuffled in and out in half the time, and be charged less, than charged the same and be given more time to talk with the doctor.
    - orev 1y ago
      People working in specialized fields (doctors, programming, etc.) don’t get paid by the hour, they get paid for their expertise, so less time spent doesn’t mean a lower price.
- fumeux_fume 1y ago
  I seriously question the premise that productivity gains from the use of AI (if they really exist) will translate into quality of life improvements. If 20 years of work experience has taught me anything, it's that higher productivity typically results in more busy work. More busy work or more work that gives the employer the most value rather than the customer or employee. So the doctor in your example gets more patients rather than higher quality interactions. Some people will get to see a doctor sooner but they still get low quality interactions.
maeln 1y ago
The part about productivity also remind me that we still often pay for handmade goods, despite them being often a common industrialized good. For example, if you enjoy cooking, or it is your job, you might be willing to pay for an artisan knife, even though you can buy a good knife for a few bucks. Same with clothes. They are extremely industrialized, but there is still a lot of tailor living of making bespoke clothe. We might do it for no other reason than an appreciation of the craft, but a lot of time, it is driven by a desire for high quality (and/or customization). This makes me wonder if one day we will see artisan software developer (I mean, the idea of software craftmanship is already here). LLM&Co are good at outputting a lot of code very quickly, but they are often not good at producing quality code. And I sincerely doubt that it will get any better, this seems to be more or less a consequence of the core technology making LLM. So unless we have a significant paradigm shift, I don't think it will improve much more. It already feels like we reach the point of diminishing return on this specific tech. So what about making smaller software, but better software, for client wanting nothing but the upmost quality ? Just like bladesmith, we will have a bunch of new fancy tool at our disposal to be able to code better and faster, but the whole point of the exercice will still to be in control of the process and not give all the decision power to a machine.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- bko 1y ago
  > This makes me wonder if one day we will see artisan software developer (I mean, the idea of software craftmanship is already here). Would you rather the software that drives your car be "artisan software", where labels were carefully chosen by a human? Software isn't the end product. It's a tool that's supposed to do something we want. We may want an artisan to design our house or iPhone, but we don't want them using "artisan hand crafted" rulers and compilers.
  - jackthetab 1y ago
    Just because I want/use an artisan knife or bake my own bread in my kitchen doesn't mean I want an artisan microwave or raise my own cows.
ednite 1y ago
The author makes a strong case against the current use of AI, and I agree that today’s tools can’t replace the deep thinking, creativity, and intuition that good programming requires. At best, they’re sophisticated parrots, useful in some ways, but fundamentally lacking understanding, maybe this will change down the road. That said, there’s another angle worth considering. AI has introduced a new kind of labor: prompt engineers. These aren’t traditional programmers, but they interact with models to produce code-like output that resembles the work of software developers. It’s not perfect, and it raises plenty of concerns, but it does represent a shift in how we think about code generation and labor. Regardless of which side of the fence you're on, I think we can all agree that this paradigm shift is happening, and arguments like the authors raise valid and important concerns. At the same time, there are also compelling reasons some people choose to embrace AI tools. In my opinion, the most crucial piece of all this is government policy. Policymakers need to get more involved to ensure we're prepared for this fast-moving and labor-disruptive technology. Just my two cents and thanks for sharing.
- add-sub-mul-div 1y ago
  Are we better off since the new labor category of mass producing garbage food was innovated? Is the convenience worth the costs to society? Sure there are people compelled to deliver this product but are their interest aligned with ours, minus the momentary need for convenience? Did government policy effectively counter public health consequences?
  - ednite 1y ago
    I get what you’re saying, and agree there’s definitely a big risk right now of mass-producing poor-quality results. I see it happening every day. It’s especially concerning when the person using the tool doesn’t really understand the output. That kind of disconnect can be dangerous. But at the same time, I’ve also read about cases where AI helped scientists accelerate research and save years of work. So there’s clearly potential for good. In my case, I’m genuinely worried about where this technology could lead us. But I’m still hopeful. With enough awareness through voices like the author’s and continued public pressure, maybe policymakers will step up and take it seriously before things get out of hand. Thanks for your comment.
bko 1y ago
> they were protesting the fact that capital owners were extracting the wealth from their labour with this new technology and weren’t reinvesting it to protect the labourers displaced by it. This capital versus labor dynamic is very common and an interesting way to frame things. But suppose you do take the view that all the wealth accrues to capital. What are the implications? One implication would be to skip college, take that money and invest it in the stock market. Why invest in labor when capital grows faster? Although I don't think anyone with this mindset would offer that advice, but rather dwell in the fact that they are laborers by design with no hope of ever breaking that. Sure enough: > I’m a labourer. A well-compensated one with plenty of bargaining power, for now. I don’t make my living profiting from capital. I have to sell my time, body, and expertise like everyone else in order to make the profits needed to support me and my family with life’s necessities. Another point, in regards to productivity > Did you know there’s no conclusive evidence that static type checking has any effect on developer productivity? We don't need "conclusive evidence" for everything. You see this a lot with a lot of ridiculous claims. I don't need some laboratory controlled environment to prove that static type checking is more productive. How do I know? Because I've used statically typed and non-statically typed language and I'm more productive in statically typed. I remember the first time I introduced Flow, a static type checker to my javascript project and the amount of errors I had was really mind-boggling. A lot of people agree with me and statically typed languages are popular and dynamically typed languages like Python are constantly adding typing tooling. It's a test of the market. People like these tools, presumably because they're making them more productive. Even if they're not, people like using them for whatever reason and that translates to something, right? This scientism around everything is exhausting.
- samrus 1y ago
  > Why invest in labor when capital grows faster? Because capital (in the sense that your referring to, which is money) isnt "real". The economy isnt based on money, its based on goods and services, which require labour and natural resources. Money is just the lubricant to make sure these two things can be optimally distributed. In simpler terms, if everyone skipped college and just invested in the stock market, then the market will collapse because no one is producing the goods and services the market is trading kn. and thats the rub (tragedy) of economics, its a cooperative system, you are a part of it, not the temporarily embarrassed billionaire you might fancy yourself as. so if you have a strategy, you have to account for everyone using it, and see if its sustainable This applies to cost reduction through wage supression or tax avoidance. If onky you do it, then it works great for you, but if all the companies in the economy do it, there suddenly consumers have no money to buy your products and the public infrastructure you need. This is why im kinda on the side of the luddites, as presented in the post. They've been portrayed as neadrathals, backwards and scared of technological progress. But if they are people who understand that capitalists (not fans of capitalism but people who own and deploy capital for a living) will ruin the whole economy with their greed and must be brought back in line, then i support that. The original luddite movement might have failed but the industrial revolution did neccesitate revolts later on where people had to get violent to ensure basic rights like child labour laws, minimum wage, the weekend, paid leave. I think the information revolution will have that as well. Probably something like the 19th- early 20th century labour rights protests, with a butlerian twist
amitprayal 1y ago
Its not our decision to make we are powerless
- mattgreenrocks 1y ago
  Individually, yes. Collectively, no. Belief that we are powerless plays right into their hands. And it is too psychologically damaging to hold over the long term. Better to acknowledge the reality that the propaganda machine is turned to 11, things are quite uncertain, but the game isn’t over yet.
- JohnFen 1y ago
  The most common way that people give up their power is by believing that they don't have any.
pacoWebConsult 1y ago
[flagged]
okokwhatever 1y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
bloppe 1y ago
The first part about labor is a bit incoherent. It bemoans the accumulation of wealth by the capital class, then the part on profitability claims that the capital class is actually losing by investing in AI. It also seems to imply that laborers should be entitled to demand for their services. Imagine if your car mechanic wanted to charge you no matter whether your car needed work or not. The lump of labor fallacy is alive and well. Some good points in the rest of the post.
karmakaze 1y ago
> I enjoy learning. And learning is a difficult chore. There is no golden road to knowledge. I am constantly frustrated when my assumptions and theories are thwarted. I can’t get the program to compile. The design of this system I was sure was right is missing a key assumption I missed. I bang my head against the wall, I read references, and I ask people questions. I try a different approach and I verify my results. Finally, eventually, the problem gives way and the solution comes out. > It is during the struggle that I learn the most and improve the most as a programmer. It is this struggle I crave. It is what I enjoy about programming. This explains the whole post to me. First of all this is an area where using an AI can streamline design considerations before getting to the head-banging-walls. Since this is an aspect that the writer enjoys, there's no saving them. They decided that they like things as they are without AI. The rest of all the cited reasons are post-decision justifications.
greybox 1y ago
Why was this flagged?
insane_dreamer 1y ago
What's up with all the flagging these days? This shouldn't be flagged.
kurtis_reed 1y ago
Some people are just committed to the idea that using AI is bad. This article didn't succeed in presenting a good argument as to why.
actuallyrizzn 1y ago
"Why I won't use moveable type." shrug
- SaucyWrong 1y ago
  Comparing typesetting to using AI to do knowledge work is about as Apples to Oranges as it can get and I think you know it.
insane_dreamer 1y ago
This reminds me of a convo I had a few days ago with my mid-20s daughter, who is a dev at a large successful tech company. When I asked her how the AI rollout was going, she said she hated it, for 2 reasons: 1) it's being crammed down their throats from "up high" without real thought being put into it, more like "AI everything" is some kind of executive mantra; that is a common refrain in companies 2) AI is taking away the aspect of the job she enjoys -- and the reason she switched to dev in the first place (her degree is in chemE) -- which is to write code, and replacing it with the aspect of the job she dislikes, which is PQA. So now instead of being a developer -- which she worked hard to get to and is quite good at, she's being reduced to a QA person, going over agent-generated code (generated by her or more likely, others on her team; she's one of the senior devs). It's sapping her creativity and inspiration, and pretty soon she's just going to be phoning it in. It's a shame. It saddened me to hear this and makes me think how this might affect society in a negative way. It's not that AI itself is the core problem, but the way that companies are "implementing" it, _is_ a problem. 3) AI doesn't actually properly do the actual mundane and time-consuming-but-soul-sucking tasks that she would like to offload to AI. This has more to do with how it's integrated into the company, their code base, etc. It's like people who say "I want AI to do my dishes so I can write letters instead of writing my letters so I can do the dishes." Some people just want to see results and don't care about the process. So writing an LLM prompt or figuring out the code, is the same to them. But for others, the journey is the goal. It's like how some people still want to craft furniture by hand when they could just get a machine to spit it out.
jtrn 1y ago
Muddled thinking galore. This write-up is just to scream into the void out of frustration... On Luddites: "They were protesting the fact that capital owners were extracting the wealth from their labour." This makes no sense, and it would be true before and after the mechanized looms. They were protesting because they were out of a job. "That wealth is going into the hands of the ultra-wealthy." It's going to the people that someone want to give their money to. I hate Microsoft with a passion, but I don't think Bill Gates went around stealing money from poor people to become rich; he got it from businesses and other high-wealth individuals. And if you really cared that much about large corporations becoming rich, you should use the hell out of their large services since they are reported to actually be losing money on heavy users. And if you don't want to give anybody any money, just don't give them any. Use a free open-weight/source model. On Productivity - the author claims there is no increase in productivity. I am strongly starting to believe that the people who are unable to increase their productivity with AI are those who are EXTREMELY rigid and score low on creativity. Even if all you ever wanted to do was fiddle around with some extremely esoteric, complex area of software development, like microkernel optimization or something like that, and even if you were in a position where an AI was completely and truly useless in assisting you in that work due to its cutting-edge and extremely esoteric nature, a person's inability to utilize AI to be more productive IS STILL baffling. YES, it might not be helpful for the thing you spent 25 years becoming an expert on. But are there truly NO other frameworks, tools, software patterns, or utility functions in the world that you could use EVER FOR ANYTHING to assist you? What about having the AI throw together a tool that scans through an old PDF with OCR and extracts specific topic information that you need for something? Or a simple webpage to host a sign-up form for an event you are organizing for your workplace? Never mind the specific examples, but you DON'T know even a fraction of what is out there, and not even having the interest and ability to use AI to make something simple but useful, that are just beyond your capabilities, but easy for an AI agent, that can assist you in you, shows a massive lack of creativity. With regards to productivity, I am a CTO of a small firm with about 8 people in our department. But holy hell, it's obvious that it's helpful with AI-assisted coding (If you are allowed to give anecdotes, so am I). On Enjoyment: The argument seems to be Programming challenges drive the author's growth, with a focus on refactoring and simplifying code. They criticize AI tools for lacking human understanding and find rote coding unengaging but essential for learning patterns and improving skills. Fine. Then do that, but either admit that you are self-centered and not primarily focused on creating value for others. Find a job where you can do what you want, or work for yourself. But don't whine at others if they expect to get usefulness out of you when you want money from them. On Ethical Training Do you apply the same level of ethical demand to all areas of your life, or do you just suddenly focus on it when it regarding "your thing"? Pharmaceutical companies jack up drug prices, hoard patents to block generics, and let people die for profit—literally life-and-death stakes. Oil giants lobby to keep pumping carbon while the planet chokes. Private equity firms gut healthcare systems, firing nurses to pad their margins. Every car uses cobalt from the DRC from child labor. I am willing to bet that most people railing against AI are happily buying modern electronics, driving a car, buying Viagra instead of losing weight, and overconsuming at a rate that dwarfs most of the people on the earth. Those are direct, tangible harms—way worse than some AI bot cribbing your code snippets. But nah, you’re here writing manifestos about LLMs. So why the selective outrage? Because it annoys you that people are using modern tools, because you’d rather the world just stick with an axe for wood chopping, because that’s what you know and enjoy. On the Environmental Impact: See above. And - are you this worried about the environment when you shop for houses, cars, and other stuff you don't need? Or is it just when the environment suffers AND it's related to something you don't like? There is no singularity: So what? Should I not have used an AI agent to help me create an XML-to-JSON parser for a custom application just 1 hour ago because there is no singularity? What Makes Us Better Programmers? What if you become a worse programmer because you are not branching out with AI to utilize new tools and functionality? What if you are prevented from deeper learning because you spend too much time on small details? You could spend your whole life studying and asymptotically improving in Chess. But don't DEMAND that people automatically recruit you for that. It's easy to demonize firms. But I am a small CTO in a small health software system. We genuinely try to make psychologists' lives easier and more productive with the stuff we make. We don't make much, and it's really hard sometimes. But I think we are making a difference to some people. And to be judged by people when I say that we should expect productivity and usefulness from the people we hire pisses me off to no extent. We don't have enough money to pay you to fiddle around with what YOU WANT. People, use all the tools we have to create something useful! And by the way, I have also been a clinical psychologist for many years, so I can say with some experience; The whole post by the author can be summarized as a tour de force of motivated reasoning. /rant
Tistel 1y ago
I did CS and have been writing code for 20+ years. For the past two years, helping clients adopt LLMs into their business logic. It has lots of good use cases. But, I can recognize when it makes mistakes due to my years of manual learning and development. If someone uses LLMs through their entire education and life experience, will they be able to spot the errors? Or will they just keep trying different prompts until it works? (and not know why it works) Its like the auto-correct spell checker. I can't spell lots of words, I can just get close enough to the right spelling until it fixes it for me. I am a bit nervous about having the same handicap with LLMs taking that away from me in: thinking, logic and code. Fully aware I can be dismissed as a dinosaur.
paulddraper 1y ago
A Software Engineer Luddite is an interesting person.
- SaucyWrong 1y ago
  In what way? Are software engineers not laborers? Is it not possible for laborers that use technology in their labor to be exploited by capital?
  - paulddraper 1y ago
    Software engineering is a high tech job. Luddites are anti-tech. So...in that way.
    - SaucyWrong 1y ago
      The summarization of this article cannot be reduced to, "Technology. Bad." You just said it--they are a software engineer. They would not be in that vocation if they did not understand on some level that technology is useful, good, and valuable. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you skipped the first three paragraphs where they were more than clear that this was simply an essay on why they have decided to avoid this particular technology.
ac130kz 1y ago
Yes, I do agree on most of AI's side effects, but it's already cheap, accurate and reliable enough to be used with a fine-tuned context/pretrained model + tooling (web and local db search in particular) at various monotonous applications without breaking a bank. A human can intervene to guide, add extra context, or even continue working from what an AI model has come up with. It's not about "good" or "bad", we have to live with it. And as always, those who don't adapt - vanish.

65 points by milen 1y ago

I tried using AI last week for some lazy research. The results were highly questionable. I asked it to cite sources. It did but those sources were even more questionable. AI has no concept of objective reality. Sometimes it is glaringlyobvious that it's just scraping 4chan and facebook and barfing up trash.

simonw 1y ago
Which tool and model?
uberman 1y ago
I was of the same mindset and did a similar test that also failed spectacularly. I asked for authoritative pros and cons on a subject in my field and asked it to cite sources. The pros and cons were ok, but the sources completely made up. So, not so great there. Then recently I had to modernize a python app written by someone who no longer works for the organization and was circa python 3.6. Several of the key libraries no longer supported the interfaces being called and there was no documentation at all. On a whim I asked an LLM to help modernize the code, file by file and it cut the effort in half. So, pretty great there.
coro_1 1y ago
We found AI is surprisingly good at programming (when no one thought this would be the frontier) which says a lot about the specific nature of the tools. You can for example, do minimal input (some peppered phrases) and see a rich answer. More specificity and research on your own, brings it out to play. The designs appear to level their self to your own capabilities.
mattgreenrocks 1y ago
LLMs are really good for things that don’t have to be 100% correct, presuming that the artifact generated is checked by someone with expertise. We used it to suggest some places to visit in Italy the past year. Great use case for AI: it brainstorms spots for an itinerary that we then check for ourselves to see if it fits our requirements. The machine helps us think beyond the usual destinations, and we vet the results. Hallucinations are not an issue. Hallucinations seem fundamental to how LLMs work now, so AI is probably still a ways off from being able to absorb responsibility for decisions like a human can. I’m sure this comment will offend both pro and anti AI camps. :)
actuallyrizzn 1y ago
i hate being a broken record on this, but skill issue. if you're a senior researcher that understands how to research, and you send a baby junior researcher off to do the work and did not give them tips or parameters to improve the research process, that's on you, not the junior.

bandoti 1y ago

Lots of nice thoughts that I agree with. But there is a lot of value creation in AI as well, beyond building things. For example, how can doctors save time and spend more time one-on-one with patients? Automate the time-consuming, business-y tasks and that’s a win. Not job loss but potential quality of life improvement for the doctors! And there are many understaffed industries. The balancing point will be reached. For now we are in early stages. I’m guessing it’ll take at least a decade or two for THE major breakthrough—whatever that may be. :)

leosanchez 1y ago
> how can doctors save time and spend more time one-on-one with patients? Do you think they will spend more time with patients or take in more patients? From what I have seen in my country they would do the latter.
- kbelder 1y ago
  >Do you think they will spend more time with patients or take in more patients? Well, taking in more patients per doctor is what will decrease the cost for the patient (so would increasing the number of doctors). Often, I'd rather be shuffled in and out in half the time, and be charged less, than charged the same and be given more time to talk with the doctor.
  - orev 1y ago
    People working in specialized fields (doctors, programming, etc.) don’t get paid by the hour, they get paid for their expertise, so less time spent doesn’t mean a lower price.
fumeux_fume 1y ago
I seriously question the premise that productivity gains from the use of AI (if they really exist) will translate into quality of life improvements. If 20 years of work experience has taught me anything, it's that higher productivity typically results in more busy work. More busy work or more work that gives the employer the most value rather than the customer or employee. So the doctor in your example gets more patients rather than higher quality interactions. Some people will get to see a doctor sooner but they still get low quality interactions.

maeln 1y ago

The part about productivity also remind me that we still often pay for handmade goods, despite them being often a common industrialized good. For example, if you enjoy cooking, or it is your job, you might be willing to pay for an artisan knife, even though you can buy a good knife for a few bucks. Same with clothes. They are extremely industrialized, but there is still a lot of tailor living of making bespoke clothe. We might do it for no other reason than an appreciation of the craft, but a lot of time, it is driven by a desire for high quality (and/or customization). This makes me wonder if one day we will see artisan software developer (I mean, the idea of software craftmanship is already here). LLM&Co are good at outputting a lot of code very quickly, but they are often not good at producing quality code. And I sincerely doubt that it will get any better, this seems to be more or less a consequence of the core technology making LLM. So unless we have a significant paradigm shift, I don't think it will improve much more. It already feels like we reach the point of diminishing return on this specific tech. So what about making smaller software, but better software, for client wanting nothing but the upmost quality ? Just like bladesmith, we will have a bunch of new fancy tool at our disposal to be able to code better and faster, but the whole point of the exercice will still to be in control of the process and not give all the decision power to a machine.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
bko 1y ago
> This makes me wonder if one day we will see artisan software developer (I mean, the idea of software craftmanship is already here). Would you rather the software that drives your car be "artisan software", where labels were carefully chosen by a human? Software isn't the end product. It's a tool that's supposed to do something we want. We may want an artisan to design our house or iPhone, but we don't want them using "artisan hand crafted" rulers and compilers.
- jackthetab 1y ago
  Just because I want/use an artisan knife or bake my own bread in my kitchen doesn't mean I want an artisan microwave or raise my own cows.

ednite 1y ago

The author makes a strong case against the current use of AI, and I agree that today’s tools can’t replace the deep thinking, creativity, and intuition that good programming requires. At best, they’re sophisticated parrots, useful in some ways, but fundamentally lacking understanding, maybe this will change down the road. That said, there’s another angle worth considering. AI has introduced a new kind of labor: prompt engineers. These aren’t traditional programmers, but they interact with models to produce code-like output that resembles the work of software developers. It’s not perfect, and it raises plenty of concerns, but it does represent a shift in how we think about code generation and labor. Regardless of which side of the fence you're on, I think we can all agree that this paradigm shift is happening, and arguments like the authors raise valid and important concerns. At the same time, there are also compelling reasons some people choose to embrace AI tools. In my opinion, the most crucial piece of all this is government policy. Policymakers need to get more involved to ensure we're prepared for this fast-moving and labor-disruptive technology. Just my two cents and thanks for sharing.

add-sub-mul-div 1y ago
Are we better off since the new labor category of mass producing garbage food was innovated? Is the convenience worth the costs to society? Sure there are people compelled to deliver this product but are their interest aligned with ours, minus the momentary need for convenience? Did government policy effectively counter public health consequences?
- ednite 1y ago
  I get what you’re saying, and agree there’s definitely a big risk right now of mass-producing poor-quality results. I see it happening every day. It’s especially concerning when the person using the tool doesn’t really understand the output. That kind of disconnect can be dangerous. But at the same time, I’ve also read about cases where AI helped scientists accelerate research and save years of work. So there’s clearly potential for good. In my case, I’m genuinely worried about where this technology could lead us. But I’m still hopeful. With enough awareness through voices like the author’s and continued public pressure, maybe policymakers will step up and take it seriously before things get out of hand. Thanks for your comment.

bko 1y ago

> they were protesting the fact that capital owners were extracting the wealth from their labour with this new technology and weren’t reinvesting it to protect the labourers displaced by it. This capital versus labor dynamic is very common and an interesting way to frame things. But suppose you do take the view that all the wealth accrues to capital. What are the implications? One implication would be to skip college, take that money and invest it in the stock market. Why invest in labor when capital grows faster? Although I don't think anyone with this mindset would offer that advice, but rather dwell in the fact that they are laborers by design with no hope of ever breaking that. Sure enough: > I’m a labourer. A well-compensated one with plenty of bargaining power, for now. I don’t make my living profiting from capital. I have to sell my time, body, and expertise like everyone else in order to make the profits needed to support me and my family with life’s necessities. Another point, in regards to productivity > Did you know there’s no conclusive evidence that static type checking has any effect on developer productivity? We don't need "conclusive evidence" for everything. You see this a lot with a lot of ridiculous claims. I don't need some laboratory controlled environment to prove that static type checking is more productive. How do I know? Because I've used statically typed and non-statically typed language and I'm more productive in statically typed. I remember the first time I introduced Flow, a static type checker to my javascript project and the amount of errors I had was really mind-boggling. A lot of people agree with me and statically typed languages are popular and dynamically typed languages like Python are constantly adding typing tooling. It's a test of the market. People like these tools, presumably because they're making them more productive. Even if they're not, people like using them for whatever reason and that translates to something, right? This scientism around everything is exhausting.

samrus 1y ago
> Why invest in labor when capital grows faster? Because capital (in the sense that your referring to, which is money) isnt "real". The economy isnt based on money, its based on goods and services, which require labour and natural resources. Money is just the lubricant to make sure these two things can be optimally distributed. In simpler terms, if everyone skipped college and just invested in the stock market, then the market will collapse because no one is producing the goods and services the market is trading kn. and thats the rub (tragedy) of economics, its a cooperative system, you are a part of it, not the temporarily embarrassed billionaire you might fancy yourself as. so if you have a strategy, you have to account for everyone using it, and see if its sustainable This applies to cost reduction through wage supression or tax avoidance. If onky you do it, then it works great for you, but if all the companies in the economy do it, there suddenly consumers have no money to buy your products and the public infrastructure you need. This is why im kinda on the side of the luddites, as presented in the post. They've been portrayed as neadrathals, backwards and scared of technological progress. But if they are people who understand that capitalists (not fans of capitalism but people who own and deploy capital for a living) will ruin the whole economy with their greed and must be brought back in line, then i support that. The original luddite movement might have failed but the industrial revolution did neccesitate revolts later on where people had to get violent to ensure basic rights like child labour laws, minimum wage, the weekend, paid leave. I think the information revolution will have that as well. Probably something like the 19th- early 20th century labour rights protests, with a butlerian twist

amitprayal 1y ago

Its not our decision to make we are powerless

mattgreenrocks 1y ago
Individually, yes. Collectively, no. Belief that we are powerless plays right into their hands. And it is too psychologically damaging to hold over the long term. Better to acknowledge the reality that the propaganda machine is turned to 11, things are quite uncertain, but the game isn’t over yet.
JohnFen 1y ago
The most common way that people give up their power is by believing that they don't have any.

pacoWebConsult 1y ago

[flagged]

okokwhatever 1y ago

[flagged]

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

bloppe 1y ago

The first part about labor is a bit incoherent. It bemoans the accumulation of wealth by the capital class, then the part on profitability claims that the capital class is actually losing by investing in AI. It also seems to imply that laborers should be entitled to demand for their services. Imagine if your car mechanic wanted to charge you no matter whether your car needed work or not. The lump of labor fallacy is alive and well. Some good points in the rest of the post.

karmakaze 1y ago

> I enjoy learning. And learning is a difficult chore. There is no golden road to knowledge. I am constantly frustrated when my assumptions and theories are thwarted. I can’t get the program to compile. The design of this system I was sure was right is missing a key assumption I missed. I bang my head against the wall, I read references, and I ask people questions. I try a different approach and I verify my results. Finally, eventually, the problem gives way and the solution comes out. > It is during the struggle that I learn the most and improve the most as a programmer. It is this struggle I crave. It is what I enjoy about programming. This explains the whole post to me. First of all this is an area where using an AI can streamline design considerations before getting to the head-banging-walls. Since this is an aspect that the writer enjoys, there's no saving them. They decided that they like things as they are without AI. The rest of all the cited reasons are post-decision justifications.

greybox 1y ago

Why was this flagged?

insane_dreamer 1y ago

What's up with all the flagging these days? This shouldn't be flagged.

kurtis_reed 1y ago

Some people are just committed to the idea that using AI is bad. This article didn't succeed in presenting a good argument as to why.

actuallyrizzn 1y ago

"Why I won't use moveable type." shrug

SaucyWrong 1y ago
Comparing typesetting to using AI to do knowledge work is about as Apples to Oranges as it can get and I think you know it.

insane_dreamer 1y ago

This reminds me of a convo I had a few days ago with my mid-20s daughter, who is a dev at a large successful tech company. When I asked her how the AI rollout was going, she said she hated it, for 2 reasons: 1) it's being crammed down their throats from "up high" without real thought being put into it, more like "AI everything" is some kind of executive mantra; that is a common refrain in companies 2) AI is taking away the aspect of the job she enjoys -- and the reason she switched to dev in the first place (her degree is in chemE) -- which is to write code, and replacing it with the aspect of the job she dislikes, which is PQA. So now instead of being a developer -- which she worked hard to get to and is quite good at, she's being reduced to a QA person, going over agent-generated code (generated by her or more likely, others on her team; she's one of the senior devs). It's sapping her creativity and inspiration, and pretty soon she's just going to be phoning it in. It's a shame. It saddened me to hear this and makes me think how this might affect society in a negative way. It's not that AI itself is the core problem, but the way that companies are "implementing" it, _is_ a problem. 3) AI doesn't actually properly do the actual mundane and time-consuming-but-soul-sucking tasks that she would like to offload to AI. This has more to do with how it's integrated into the company, their code base, etc. It's like people who say "I want AI to do my dishes so I can write letters instead of writing my letters so I can do the dishes." Some people just want to see results and don't care about the process. So writing an LLM prompt or figuring out the code, is the same to them. But for others, the journey is the goal. It's like how some people still want to craft furniture by hand when they could just get a machine to spit it out.

jtrn 1y ago

Muddled thinking galore. This write-up is just to scream into the void out of frustration... On Luddites: "They were protesting the fact that capital owners were extracting the wealth from their labour." This makes no sense, and it would be true before and after the mechanized looms. They were protesting because they were out of a job. "That wealth is going into the hands of the ultra-wealthy." It's going to the people that someone want to give their money to. I hate Microsoft with a passion, but I don't think Bill Gates went around stealing money from poor people to become rich; he got it from businesses and other high-wealth individuals. And if you really cared that much about large corporations becoming rich, you should use the hell out of their large services since they are reported to actually be losing money on heavy users. And if you don't want to give anybody any money, just don't give them any. Use a free open-weight/source model. On Productivity - the author claims there is no increase in productivity. I am strongly starting to believe that the people who are unable to increase their productivity with AI are those who are EXTREMELY rigid and score low on creativity. Even if all you ever wanted to do was fiddle around with some extremely esoteric, complex area of software development, like microkernel optimization or something like that, and even if you were in a position where an AI was completely and truly useless in assisting you in that work due to its cutting-edge and extremely esoteric nature, a person's inability to utilize AI to be more productive IS STILL baffling. YES, it might not be helpful for the thing you spent 25 years becoming an expert on. But are there truly NO other frameworks, tools, software patterns, or utility functions in the world that you could use EVER FOR ANYTHING to assist you? What about having the AI throw together a tool that scans through an old PDF with OCR and extracts specific topic information that you need for something? Or a simple webpage to host a sign-up form for an event you are organizing for your workplace? Never mind the specific examples, but you DON'T know even a fraction of what is out there, and not even having the interest and ability to use AI to make something simple but useful, that are just beyond your capabilities, but easy for an AI agent, that can assist you in you, shows a massive lack of creativity. With regards to productivity, I am a CTO of a small firm with about 8 people in our department. But holy hell, it's obvious that it's helpful with AI-assisted coding (If you are allowed to give anecdotes, so am I). On Enjoyment: The argument seems to be Programming challenges drive the author's growth, with a focus on refactoring and simplifying code. They criticize AI tools for lacking human understanding and find rote coding unengaging but essential for learning patterns and improving skills. Fine. Then do that, but either admit that you are self-centered and not primarily focused on creating value for others. Find a job where you can do what you want, or work for yourself. But don't whine at others if they expect to get usefulness out of you when you want money from them. On Ethical Training Do you apply the same level of ethical demand to all areas of your life, or do you just suddenly focus on it when it regarding "your thing"? Pharmaceutical companies jack up drug prices, hoard patents to block generics, and let people die for profit—literally life-and-death stakes. Oil giants lobby to keep pumping carbon while the planet chokes. Private equity firms gut healthcare systems, firing nurses to pad their margins. Every car uses cobalt from the DRC from child labor. I am willing to bet that most people railing against AI are happily buying modern electronics, driving a car, buying Viagra instead of losing weight, and overconsuming at a rate that dwarfs most of the people on the earth. Those are direct, tangible harms—way worse than some AI bot cribbing your code snippets. But nah, you’re here writing manifestos about LLMs. So why the selective outrage? Because it annoys you that people are using modern tools, because you’d rather the world just stick with an axe for wood chopping, because that’s what you know and enjoy. On the Environmental Impact: See above. And - are you this worried about the environment when you shop for houses, cars, and other stuff you don't need? Or is it just when the environment suffers AND it's related to something you don't like? There is no singularity: So what? Should I not have used an AI agent to help me create an XML-to-JSON parser for a custom application just 1 hour ago because there is no singularity? What Makes Us Better Programmers? What if you become a worse programmer because you are not branching out with AI to utilize new tools and functionality? What if you are prevented from deeper learning because you spend too much time on small details? You could spend your whole life studying and asymptotically improving in Chess. But don't DEMAND that people automatically recruit you for that. It's easy to demonize firms. But I am a small CTO in a small health software system. We genuinely try to make psychologists' lives easier and more productive with the stuff we make. We don't make much, and it's really hard sometimes. But I think we are making a difference to some people. And to be judged by people when I say that we should expect productivity and usefulness from the people we hire pisses me off to no extent. We don't have enough money to pay you to fiddle around with what YOU WANT. People, use all the tools we have to create something useful! And by the way, I have also been a clinical psychologist for many years, so I can say with some experience; The whole post by the author can be summarized as a tour de force of motivated reasoning. /rant

Tistel 1y ago

I did CS and have been writing code for 20+ years. For the past two years, helping clients adopt LLMs into their business logic. It has lots of good use cases. But, I can recognize when it makes mistakes due to my years of manual learning and development. If someone uses LLMs through their entire education and life experience, will they be able to spot the errors? Or will they just keep trying different prompts until it works? (and not know why it works) Its like the auto-correct spell checker. I can't spell lots of words, I can just get close enough to the right spelling until it fixes it for me. I am a bit nervous about having the same handicap with LLMs taking that away from me in: thinking, logic and code. Fully aware I can be dismissed as a dinosaur.

paulddraper 1y ago

A Software Engineer Luddite is an interesting person.

SaucyWrong 1y ago
In what way? Are software engineers not laborers? Is it not possible for laborers that use technology in their labor to be exploited by capital?
- paulddraper 1y ago
  Software engineering is a high tech job. Luddites are anti-tech. So...in that way.
  - SaucyWrong 1y ago
    The summarization of this article cannot be reduced to, "Technology. Bad." You just said it--they are a software engineer. They would not be in that vocation if they did not understand on some level that technology is useful, good, and valuable. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you skipped the first three paragraphs where they were more than clear that this was simply an essay on why they have decided to avoid this particular technology.

ac130kz 1y ago

Yes, I do agree on most of AI's side effects, but it's already cheap, accurate and reliable enough to be used with a fine-tuned context/pretrained model + tooling (web and local db search in particular) at various monotonous applications without breaking a bank. A human can intervene to guide, add extra context, or even continue working from what an AI model has come up with. It's not about "good" or "bad", we have to live with it. And as always, those who don't adapt - vanish.