8 ms·

How it reads is that the world has converged on an obviously bad technology. If only you had the chance to control it from top down and you wouldn’t let this mi

How it reads is that the world has converged on an obviously bad technology. If only you had the chance to control it from top down and you wouldn’t let this mistake happen for you know what’s best for the world. Not only that, it’s double bad because you can’t do anything about it because everyone is under the illusion except you and a few other sensible people. And you would reject the notion that you have agency to change things. Can’t take it seriously.

coldtea 10d ago
How the above reads is you can't understand anything wider than your personal affairs. Or you believe that the world can't possibly converge on a bad technology or practice, and get bad outcomes out of it, while much fewer see potential issues and warn about them. Both of which can't be taken seriously.
- simianwords 10d ago
  The world fortunately works under a system that is durable to these problems. You can actually start a company that doesn't use AI if you think it runs better that way. This argument obviously doesn't work because 1. you would decline the agency existing to make a new company 2. you might even say that AI does help companies work better, but its bad for people - suddenly its no longer about the lack of competency of AI but rather how good it is
  - coldtea 10d ago
    >The world fortunately works under a system that is durable to these problems The world works under a system that populations have suffered or even whole countries and empires perished because of systemic problems. If your answer is "but humanity still endured and is alive today", that's a pretty low bar, not to mention moving the goalposts so far they can't even be seen anymore. >You can actually start a company that doesn't use AI if you think it runs better that way I can. And it means nothing to the concern of the parent: "For many of us, AI adoption is really an AI mandate". Your solution is "if you don't like your employer demanding you use AI, just start your own company". Agency doesn't mean do any arbitrary action and there's no risk or downsides. Will you pay for their expenses to start their own company? Will you personally loan them money? Will you teach them business skills needed to run a company after they've been a regular employee programmer for 2 decades? Will you feed their kids if the company doesn't catch on? Will you find them employment if they have to shut it down and go back to a regular job as a 40 or 50 year old, in this job market, where you can apply for 20 jobs and not even hear back? Oh, and do the same for millions of others, not just your friend or your favorite cousin? It doesn't matter whether some individual person can make a non-AI company, since the argument was never about the inability to make one. It was about millions of people pressured to use AI in their jobs whether they like it or not. "Oh, those millions are only pressured because they lack the agency to start their own business" even more out-of-touch that "let them eat cake". It's the boomer's "pull yourself by the bootstraps" sermon. Like the idea that millions can't find a job because they lack agency and a firm handshake, or that they're in debt because of that latte.

coldtea 10d ago

How the above reads is you can't understand anything wider than your personal affairs. Or you believe that the world can't possibly converge on a bad technology or practice, and get bad outcomes out of it, while much fewer see potential issues and warn about them. Both of which can't be taken seriously.

simianwords 10d ago
The world fortunately works under a system that is durable to these problems. You can actually start a company that doesn't use AI if you think it runs better that way. This argument obviously doesn't work because 1. you would decline the agency existing to make a new company 2. you might even say that AI does help companies work better, but its bad for people - suddenly its no longer about the lack of competency of AI but rather how good it is
- coldtea 10d ago
  >The world fortunately works under a system that is durable to these problems The world works under a system that populations have suffered or even whole countries and empires perished because of systemic problems. If your answer is "but humanity still endured and is alive today", that's a pretty low bar, not to mention moving the goalposts so far they can't even be seen anymore. >You can actually start a company that doesn't use AI if you think it runs better that way I can. And it means nothing to the concern of the parent: "For many of us, AI adoption is really an AI mandate". Your solution is "if you don't like your employer demanding you use AI, just start your own company". Agency doesn't mean do any arbitrary action and there's no risk or downsides. Will you pay for their expenses to start their own company? Will you personally loan them money? Will you teach them business skills needed to run a company after they've been a regular employee programmer for 2 decades? Will you feed their kids if the company doesn't catch on? Will you find them employment if they have to shut it down and go back to a regular job as a 40 or 50 year old, in this job market, where you can apply for 20 jobs and not even hear back? Oh, and do the same for millions of others, not just your friend or your favorite cousin? It doesn't matter whether some individual person can make a non-AI company, since the argument was never about the inability to make one. It was about millions of people pressured to use AI in their jobs whether they like it or not. "Oh, those millions are only pressured because they lack the agency to start their own business" even more out-of-touch that "let them eat cake". It's the boomer's "pull yourself by the bootstraps" sermon. Like the idea that millions can't find a job because they lack agency and a firm handshake, or that they're in debt because of that latte.