Hacker News Reader

Comment by Lyngbakr | Hacker News Reader

    > They are being told, on the one hand, that these tools are going to eliminate millions of jobs, and on the other that they have to use them if they don’t want to fall behind.

I'm currently reading a fascinating book called Blood In The Machine° about the Luddites who opposed certain technologies in 19th century England and the parallels with the current state of affairs. It's important to remember that while history doesn't repeat itself, it often rhymes.

° https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/59801798-blood-in-the-ma...

View on HN

Because history is written by the victors, the Luddites were painted as idiots who just hated machines for no reason or dumb reasons. This couldn't be further from the truth.

The sad thing that I haven't been able to resolve in my mind is that this is a cultural multi-party prisoners' dilemma among sovereign entities.

From a power-centric point of view, if my neighbors intentionally cast off modern technology, they are ripe for domination, economic exploitation, etc. The history of human civilization from the age of city-states onward is about navigating the need for protection from hostile, arrogating outside forces (and/or being one of those hostile forces).

This doesn't account for the potential instability of modern technology. If you have an efficient electric range and your neighbors are still burning wood when the power goes out, you're in dutch. This is relevant to the AI discussion, as there is still a class of people doing things "the old way", and their skills might come in clutch for a society that's let itself atrophy in convenience.

no one pragmatic, realistic and grounded who uses the tools regularly thinks that "the death of AI" contingency is something worth planning your career around

Meaning that if AI dies I'll get rich and if AI doesn't die I'll die? I agree - that would be a stupid bet to take.

Or meaning that if AI dies I'll be one of the ones who knows how to do things? That's not so stupid.

this assumes you're not giving anything away by doing things the old way. but you're giving away AI competency, the ability to compete with your peers at your job etc.

The same AI competency that has to be relearned from scratch every 6 months?

The only navigable path is to gain power in any way you can, and then once you have it, use that power for good. Despite being the most navigable, it's still a very treacherous path. And there's a risk for everyone else, if you take this path, you might end up worse than the last guy, and if that happens, someone else will have to repeat the process.

Be like Zohran Mamdani. Zohran only had to win an election where everyone hated the incumbent, which is one of the easiest ways to get power. His enemies are floundering now, they're trying to pin baseball losses on him because they've got nothing else. Most of us here, being nerdy technologists and not charismatic politicians, will have to do it by creating technology and learning the tricks of back-end sales, the way ZUckerberg or Page did.

Dictators win elections and then replace them with hereditary lines of succession. We don't have a word for kings who hold elections for their successors. Usually they only do so at knifepoint. Game theory - inter-agent power dynamics - is one of the strongest forces in the universe, almost as strong as entropy. Game theory is Cthulu, Moloch, SCP-3125, that thing from Homestuck that eats universes, and both God and Satan. But if we give up, we lose.

For example, the post-demise advent of Val Kilmer in "As Deep as the Grave" https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/filmmakers-de... could prove a turning point.

If the "societal we" don't care to drown in AI-driven slop, the capitalist argument would seem to be a rebirth of local theater, written by no-kidding playwrights and performed by local actors in neighborhood venues.

The "societal we" will have the humanity and art that it demands in the marketplace as consumers, pure and simple.

If only Ed Wood had had access to this technology. Bela Lugosi's character in Plan 9 from Outer Space could have appeared without covering his face with his cape.

also, it was true that people could be retrained, so their point was less serious.

That won't be the case when AI can do almost every white collar jobs.

What is the difference between someone who (a) dislikes some machinery and (b) someone who (i) refuses to use some machinery and (ii) _actively opposes_ the use of some machinery by _anyone_, for example, through sabotage or violence

This submission mentions certain incidents arguably representative of (b) but is squarely focused on (a). It discusses polling young people on what they think of "AI"

The greatest "threat" to "AI" IMHO is (a), where this results in stagnant or decreased usage of "AI"

"AI" is relentlessly hyped because the usage numbers are paramount

IMHO (b) is not a serious threat to usage

For some reason, commenters invested in "AI" seek to characterise (a) as (b)

I'm not sure why

To me, it seems inappropriate to compare (a) a group of people today, i.e., Gen Z, who use some "machinery" but dislike it, according to polling, with (b) a group of people in the 17th century that refused to use some machinery, sabotaged it and violently attacked their employers, some of who threatened they would violently attack their employees

The nuance that’s talked less about is that both statements can be and likely will be true, but which way will the balance swing:

1. Many jobs will be eliminated (will they be offset by new jobs?)

2. The new technology will need to be adopted if you don’t want to fall behind (will there be less of these jobs or more?)

In past circumstances like the one you mentioned, there were more jobs than before. Ultimately we all just want to consume endlessly. That pressure creates more demand when prices lower, which causes businesses to compete via differentiation, which creates more jobs. I don’t think this situation will be any different

> In past circumstances like the one you mentioned, there were more jobs than before.

Were the jobs better or worse though?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com