6 ms·

One could probably think of dozens of reasonable arguments for avoiding LLM use, but this one is awful. If LLMs actually are able to get more work done with few

• TeMPOraL 8mo ago
  Yup. The problem was never with the technology replacing work, it was always with the social aspect of deploying it, that ends up pulling the rug under people whose livelihood depend on exchanging labor for money. The luddites didn't destroy automatic looms because they hated technology; they did it because losing their jobs and seeing their whole occupation disappear ruined their lives and lives of their families. The problem to fix isn't automation, but preventing it from destroying people's lives at scale.
  • expedition32 8mo ago
    You don't ban new technology you regulate it. That is what happened with the 19th century factories.
• UqWBcuFx6NV4r 8mo ago
  Yeah. This has been an interesting cultural shift, especially with “the kids”. I’ve had at least a few people passionately tell me that using (non-generative, non-LLM) AI to assist with social network content moderation, is unethical, because it takes away jobs from people. Mind you, these are jobs in which people are exposed to CSAM, gore, etc. A fact that does not dissuade people of this view. There are certainly some sensible arguments against using “AI” for content moderation. This is not one of them. It’s really intriguing how an increasingly popular view of what’s “ethical” is anything that doesn’t stand in the way of the ‘proletariat’ getting their bag, and anything that protects content creators’ intellectual property rights, with no real interest in the greater good. Such a dramatic shift from the music piracy generation a mere decade or two ago. It’s especially intriguing as a non-American. Again, as you say, many sensible arguments against AI, but for some people it really takes a backseat to “they took our jerbs!”
  • andrepd 8mo ago
    They took our jerbs is a perfectly valid argument for people which face ruin without a jerb. Capitalism is not prepared nor willing to retrain people, drastically lower the workweek, or bring about a UBI sourced from the value of the commons. So indeed, if the promises of AI hold true, a catastrophe is incoming. Fortunately for us, the promises of AI CEOs are unlikely to be true.
    • marcus_holmes 8mo ago
      This is the bit I get frustrated by - the need for jerbs at all. If we manage to replace all the workers with AI - that's awesome! We will obviously have to work out a system for everyone to get shelter, and food, and so on. But that post-scarcity utopia of everyone being able to do whatever they want with their time and not have to work, that's the goal, right? That's where we want to be. Jerbs are an interim nightmare that we have had to do to get from subsistence agriculture to post-scarcity abundance, they're not some intrinsic part of human existence.
      • danaris 8mo ago
        But right now, there is no way in hell we're going to get any kind of support for people who lost their jobs to AI. Not in the US, at least. Look at the current administration. Do you think they would even consider providing anything like UBI? They actively want to take us down the cyberpunk dystopia route (or even the Christofascist regressive dystopia route...). They want us to become serfs to technofeudal overlords. Or just die, and decrease the surplus population.
        • marcus_holmes 8mo ago
          Agree, but this is how revolutions happen, and everyone knows it, so they're going to have to do something.
          • danaris 8mo ago
• andrepd 8mo ago
  Would being the operating word here. In a capitalist economy with wage labour, it is a catastrophe.
• barishnamazov 8mo ago
  I personally wish for the time when AI can replace everything I can do (at least in my current field). I'm not sure how exactly I'll feel about it then, but it'd be a technological advancement I'd enjoy seeing in my lifetime. One question perhaps is, even if AI can do everything I can do (i.e., has the skills for it), will it do everything I do? I'm sure there are many people in the world with the superset of my skills, yet I bet there are some things only I'm doing, and I don't think a really smart AI will change that.
• goatlover 8mo ago
  Does this argument still work if LLMs end up increasing unemployment and making it a lot harder for graduates to find good jobs? Who is it good for in that case, the shareholders? It's nice if humans can always create more jobs, but that's not what the tech bros are promising investors. They're making claims about how AI is going to seriously reduce the need for human labor. Programming, writing and art are just the starting ground for what's coming, if their predictions are anywhere close to being correct.
  • rendang 8mo ago
    Because consumer demand is infinite, the only way to majorly and permanently increase unemployment is to completely automate all labor or maybe almost all. We have been automating away jobs for hundreds of years and unemployment is still ~4%
    • elzbardico 8mo ago
      unemployment figures are a joke. What matters is how much able bodied people that could work, actually do have a job. And this number tells a completely different history from the feel good libertarian narratives such as this one.
• penguin_booze 8mo ago
  [dead]
• poulpy123 8mo ago
  I would like for an AI to do my work, unfortunately I have to buy food and pay my rent. The Industrial Revolution caused a great deal of damage. It was a net positive in the long term because new jobs were created to replace those that were lost, but it took decades and enormous violence. Now, the promise of AI is that it will be more efficient than any human being. If this becomes a reality, there will be, by definition, no new jobs created for the people replaced by AI.