Hacker News Reader

Comment by arjie | Hacker News Reader

Personally, I just can’t find it in me to be that self-interested. It’s how other people oppose buildings near them because it blocks their view. I really don’t want to stop other people from writing software. If they want to use AI to do it so be it.

That’ll be somewhat detrimental to me perhaps (which isn’t certain), but that’s okay. I’d rather attempt to adapt to a changing world.

View on HN

I don't know that unions would necessarily negotiate for no use of AI. The SAG-AFRA deals don't preclude all use of AI; they just requre consent and negotiation in certain cases.

A union doesn't give you unilateral power; it just gives you a better seat at the bargaining table. Capital pools its resources to negotiate better as a single bloc; why shouldn't labor as well?

I don't have a voice or likeness in my code. Sure, I have a very specific style in all the code I wrote for the past couple of decades, but you can achieve the same outputs with completely orthogonal styles as well. (like AoS vs SoA) so what would I even negotiate for when everything I ever thought of got distilled into neural network weights to be high-pressure sprayed to the masses?

> so what would I even negotiate for when everything I ever thought of got distilled into neural network weights to be high-pressure sprayed to the masses?

For your unique approach to the problems at hand. Yes, 90% of the code written is CRUD, but when it's not, how it's solved matters.

This is why we have grown with id Software games. They solved the problems, created new paths and methods for limited hardware for their time.

This is why we praised DivX and XviD back in the day. They solved problems again which are caused by the limits of the computers.

The way one solves problems matter, makes one valuable. This is why we do research and create new ways to do things.

In short, your creativity is being sold/sprayed to masses.

Then do it. Hypothetically claiming the job can be automated as an excuse to pay people less is older than everyone alive today. Lying to exploit workers is nothing new.

Until you actually remove the need for a human, you have to pay full price for human labor. Which if you used AI is never really going to happen. Someone has to evaluate what AI creates to make sure it does what was asked. This trend of not prosecuting crimes conducted by AI cannot last forever. The CEO would be the only one arrestable as the CEO is the only person with decision power in the company.

The giant strikes were hugely based on AI issues

Yes, and these prevented actors being copied in 3D, in all their likeness and cast for any and every movie they fit practically for free.

This is the first time I've heard someone argue that unionizing is a self-interested pursuit. It's called "collective bargaining" for a reason; workers who cooperate in negotiations with their employers have more leverage than those who negotiate individually. The entire point is to work together for the betterment of the group!

their point is while the 'group' wins, the rest of the world loses.

localized gains, distributed loss.

as an art enjoyer, i do not feel that having less media written, drawn, or voiced by a computer is a loss.

a computer can never be sad or horny or have taste. it can only make product. i also think artists should be paid living wages with good working conditions.

thank you SAG-AFTRA, WGA, IATSE, AEMI and Teamsters.

> a computer can never be sad or horny or have taste

So far ;-)

> a computer can never be sad or horny or have taste

Neither can a record player. Nevertheless, we consume recorded music.

Surely you must be aware that record players don't compose the music they are playing?

I enjoy looking at beautiful rock formations. I am also thankful for the Sun and the Moon.

Who made those?

What's wrong with Automated Intelligence (TM) making things for me to enjoy?

Is that question supposed to be profound? Because surely someone has explained the formation of our celestial bodies to you.

Nope. That is what's called a rhetorical question and a pretty good one because obviously it stirred some emotion in you.

Was your question supposed to be profound? Surely someone has explained to you that record players don't compose music.

Perhaps you could be a little more charitable and less toxic here and answer my obviously non-rhetorical question: Why shouldn't I enjoy things that were created through an automatic process? Hmm?

> Nope. That is what's called a rhetorical question and a pretty good one because obviously it stirred some emotion in you.

I guess if your goal is just to get any reaction, it was good, since it definitely stirred up annoyance in me? Unfortunately it also showed that you're fundamentally misunderstanding the arguments brought against AI media, be it willfully or accidentally. Either way, it gives me zero reason to want to discuss the topic with you.

> Was your question supposed to be profound? Surely someone has explained to you that record players don't compose music.

No, it's a stupidly simple question. GP is equivocating two things that obviously show fundamental qualitative differences, but did not give any reasons why this equivocation is supposed to make sense.

When I see comments where the only interpretation I can see has major and obvious logical gaps, I sometimes ask the obvious question in the hopes that they can show me a perspective I haven't properly encountered before. Because surely all of us are capable of recognizing how weak arguments based on "two topics look vaguely similar once you strip all nuance", when you can do the same with almost any two things?

> I guess if your goal is just to get any reaction, it was good, since it definitely stirred up annoyance in me?

Do you think that my goal is only to get a reaction and not to try and make any other point? I think someone who was "just" trying to get a reaction probably would just curse at you or do something else. Reactions are signals though and annoyance in particular is a very useful signal, hopeful to the one who experiences it. More importantly though, why, when you responded to me the first time, did you not address the very obvious non-rhetorical variant of my question though and instead, decide to appeal to me with sarcasm about the profundity of the rhetorical variant?

I'm trying to engage here and not put my trauma on display so I'll try to be as straightforward as I can. I am sincerely trying to respond in kind to you by telling you the truth and I will be glad to explain, in detail, my point of view. So, let me do that:

> GP is equivocating two things...but did not give any reasons why...

Yes. And I had hoped to correct that equivocation by pointing out the many random and/or automated processes that produce beautiful or otherwise enjoyable things. I wasn't agreeing with GP, I was improving the position. And I did, because very many useful things are created without any human interaction.

> fundamentally misunderstanding the arguments brought against AI media

Okay and you haven't engaged with the point that I'm making at all. It's different than the GP's. You also haven't given me any reasoning to backup your point that I am fundamentally misunderstanding the arguments brought against AI media. You want reasons why and I want reasons why. Let's engage in a civil manner.

The point that we're engaging on, really, is not the GP's. It's what computerliker said about how "a computer can never be sad or horny or have taste. it can only make product" and that "having less media [created] by a computer is a loss".

Nothing to misunderstand there and I disagree strongly on both the implications of the first and the conclusion of the second quote. That's what I'm attempting to address and not every possible argument ever made about AI creations.

So, do you still think that I'm misunderstanding something? Also, what about my point? Do we really want fewer things created by random and/or automated processes simply because a human didn't create them? I don't think so.

yeah and the shadows on the cave wall are alive and dancing just for you my friend

There is no moral imperative to help the world reach an optimum. Rather, the world is full of competing interests.

See current situation where the Carpenters' Union in California is pushing hard against an initiative that would make it much easier to build more housing in the state because it would also reduce requirements for union labor.

Unions are very much an in-group vs out-group phenomenon (and in many cases, the benefits are specifically to the more senior union members vis a vis the less senior ones.)

> See current situation where the Carpenters' Union in California is pushing hard against an initiative that would make it much easier to build more housing in the state because it would also reduce requirements for union labor

If you're talking about AB 1751 (Missing Middle Townhome Ownership Act) I think you have this exactly backwards.

> Unions are very much an in-group vs out-group phenomenon

As opposed to what? You and the GGP phrase this as a dichotomy, but I'm really curious what the other side of this is, because "not being in a union" doesn't erase your self interest or all the many many groups of people doing the same that don't feel like they're apparently being overly self interested by forming corporations, governments, non-profits, advocacy groups, etc, etc, etc

> Unions are very much an in-group vs out-group phenomenon (and in many cases, the benefits are specifically to the more senior union members vis a vis the less senior

In the US. In the UK all the major unions I know don't require membership and fight for all employees in the industries they represent. E.g. as a software developer on a research project at a University I got all the negotiated benefits of the academic Union.

In Italy too. We have national contracts that are negotiated by unions for the whole indistry and are valid for all workers of the same industry, not only members.

They've also been proven to increase wages for people in the same industry who are not even in the union due to raising the floor in general for what good labor should cost

Have you ever not been able to send your kids to school for weeks (or years in the case of COVID) because the teachers refused to work? Have you ever been unable to get timely medical treatment because nurses refused to work? Have you ever been unable to work yourself because the transit workers refused to work?

Maybe if employers offered better working conditions and salaries people wouldn’t feel the need to go on strike?

People have this right to take better jobs at other companies. This is how we get better working conditions: competition between employers. Tech has figured this out. I’ve never felt the need to go on strike.

Unions can be a deterrent to this. If you have sectoral bargaining, you can’t get a better deal anywhere because everyone pays the same. Or even if it’s within a single company, you’re just stuck with whatever scheme the union bosses agreed to.

But also, unions are a deterrent to new employers since fewer people want to start companies in industries where unions have taken over. They’re a nightmare to deal with. Fewer employers means less competition means worse services.

We have a dynamic economy with lots of competition. It’s easy to switch jobs and find a better place to work. We should not want to give this up.

"Competition is universally good" is what has decimated American manufacturing since Reagan. It's hollowed out the US middle class, which affects what the country can build, purchasing power, and innovation. Free trade policies have destroyed cities, eliminated millions of well-paying jobs, cut social services, and ripped the social fabric from communities. There were no alternatives to just "take a job at a better company"; most manufacturing jobs that left had no alternatives.

It was cynically selfish and short-sighted. The US from 1980–2020 is a perfect example of how much more complex systems, economies, worker dynamics, and second/third/nth order effects are.

Just to add to that "Competition" is no longer even a thing when the unchecked capitalistic game is played to the extent we are at, with extreme consolidation and duo/triopoly cartels running most services and playing all the dirty tricks in the bag (regulatory capture, rent extraction, lobbying for deregulation and weakening of labour and environmental norms, ...)

Competition is generally good for the consumer, but Americans need to wake up to the fact that it's not built into the system, it's to be regulated into it, and competing is only good so far as it doesn't turn into a race to the bottom (which again, is a matter of a regulator setting the bar).

You realize his examples are public sector unions. Which mean the “employer” you are referring to is the citizens? Not some evil corporation, government mandated monopolies which then get taken over to serve their union members.

I don’t have any objection to voluntary unions. Meaning people can join them for support or collective bargaining, but that citizens can just opt to not employ anyone in the union. Unions could be support structures for workers, instead they are mafia bosses.

Well… yeah. But I didn’t blame the employees, I blamed the employer who must have seen the writing on the wall for a long time and yet let it come to this.

Why do you assume unions are always reasonable? Unions in the US have a long history of over reaching and crippling industries and governments.

Those self-interested unions better stay away from my interests!

Nurses have very strict legal requirements on when they can strike and for how long. Not unlike railroad workers.

When have you not been able to get timely medical treatment at the fault of nurses ?

I can't speak for the OP, but I don't think their point was that they're against the self-interested nature of unionizing.

I read it more like they're against trying to stop, hinder, or prevent the use of new technology, simply because it's personally threatening.

And I feel the same way. If I was part of a union, I would believe in the collective bargaining power, but I wouldn't necessarily believe we should use that to pursue every single possible agenda that might benefit us. And I've personally pooled my capital with others in the past in order to achieve certain outcomes. And in those situations I also didn't attempt to reach so far as to limit the totally valid freedoms of others just because I knew it might be better for me.

Acting in the interest of a collective doesn't mean one must also abandon the ethics they usually employ when acting in their solo self interest.

People also forget the role they play in protecting and helping corporations. Without unions as a legal and negotiating intermediary you get things like factory workers burning down the factories when they are overly exploited.

Sorry, but I don't think that makes sense. Any mutiny-preventing deal that a union negotiates could instead have been offered voluntarily by the employer to all employees from the outset, no union required.

You have described self-interest.

That's not to say unions, or self-interest itself, are bad.

I'm unsure how you reach the conclusion of "self-interest". Unions are about collective bargaining power, reaching (ideally) what's best for most of the people it represents, even if it's detrimental to you specifically.

>Personally, I just can’t find it in me to be that self-interested

Caring about your ability to pay your bills, and support your family is "self-interested" in the same way that choosing to not drive into oncoming traffic is "self-interested".

Has it occurred to you that it isn't only self-interest but concern for others that drives collective bargaining? It's essentialy a way for the little guys to stand up to the 1% to fight against the unending series of abuses and diminishment of the average person's ability to earn a livable wage and work under fair conditions.

Yes. But there's a clear difference between, say, stealing someone's voice, identity or intellectual property, and preventing someone from using automation to do labor.

The former is obviously unfair to the person whose identity is stolen. The latter is sour grapes from people who want to control the future.

I also can't bring myself to get incensed over someone using a robot to write code. It's literally the modern equivalent of smashing knitting looms.

You keep framing it as getting incensed over other people using ai to write code; but that isn't what it's about. A dev union would not attempt that; it would attempt to ensure quality of life for your class of people (and their families) as much as possible. It isn't about policing entire industries or other entities; it is about DEFENDING those who they would, do, and always have exploited when binding contracts or legislation don't prevent them from doing so.

Union = a group of people defending their rights and that includes the right to a life that isn't at the utter mercy of perpetual enshittification due to the infinite mechanical plodding of heartless (by definition) megacorporations that would never hesitate to eradicate peoples' livelihoods and treat humans as material for the orphan grinder if they could get away with it.

And by the way, they do, if you haven't noticed.

> it would attempt to ensure quality of life for your class of people (and their families) as much as possible.

What is “your class of people”, and why is it threatened by what other people do with coding robots?

You can try to dress it up as an intellectual argument, but at root it’s the same thing that the luddites were trying to do: defending your preferred lifestyle from technological advances.

We, the ditch diggers of the world, support your unqualified resistance to the use of steam shovels! Fewer holes, slower!

Your argument boils down to the idea that human life is not worth defending, even when capital actively undermines it by undercutting honest people's honest efforts to work for a living.

Thank you for outing yourself as a low-empathy, capital-aligned individual who makes bad-faith arguments, I'll know not to engage you from now on.

A software union probably wouldn't tell you what tools to use when writing code. It would help protect you from being completed replaced by code

> Personally, I just can’t find it in me to be that self-interested.

Yes, exactly. Do not advocate for yourself and your colleagues by joining them in a united front. Your voice does not matter. You will continue to adapt to widening wage disparities.

You will accept a pay cut and increased productivity goals and be happy to continue adapting as your cost of living keeps on climbing.

Try to think about other people a bit.

You are part of a whole. You are not alone.

Saying you don’t mind to adapt is insulting.

Right, but in your apathy there is a well organised group of capitalists who are vying to instrumentalise your existence. A union is just levelling the playing field.

You may be surprised to know that residential areas in San Francisco are height limited, sometimes as short as 4 stories. They're not exactly anti-progress.

Height limiting is anti-progress, which was his point.

Ok SF needs somewhat higher-density housing. But wanting something good for yourself and your peers isn't anti-progress. If the benefits accrue to only a few people, it's not progress.

> But wanting something good for yourself and your peers isn't anti-progress.

It is if it makes it worse for everyone else.

Thats great, although understand that unionizing protects the more vulnerable of also the software engineered. You not advocating for your rights also means weakening others. Is it still self interested to unionized from that perspective?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com