Hacker News Reader

Comment by vouaobrasil | Hacker News Reader

In general, society is experience a decoupling of fun from work. I can't say I enjoy every aspect of my job, but it's nice to enjoy some of it, and lots of people do find a lot of their job at least somewhat rewarding.

People who hate their job of course like to come out of the woodwork and say no one should enjoy it, but isn't it nice to have a society where at least some people can enjoy their work? I used to enjoy teaching but I'd never get a teaching job now because of how AI is being used in that sector.

Technophiles will say that we should embrace the future because its inevitable but how many good people quitting does it take before they realize that a vibe-coded future of fun isn't all there is to life?

View on HN

Us techies have taken the fun out of a lot of professions with the tools we are developing and selling. I guess it was only a matter of time until we killed the fun in our profession.

You have to fight to keep work fun. It requires skill and some cunning. People are not going to hand you a "fun job", that part falls on you.

True. I agree. But I think it's also not very nice of AI programmers to actively work to take that fun away. And part of the skill of keeping a job fun is working against those who do attempt to take the fun away.

> but isn't it nice to have a society where at least some people can enjoy their work?

That’s an interesting question. I thought about it for a minute and was surprised that I came to the conclusion that the answer isn’t obviously “yes”.

An analogous question is “isn't it nice to have a society where at least some people are rich?”, and I think that question should make it clearer to many people why that is so.

> An analogous question is “isn't it nice to have a society where at least some people are rich?”

There’s a crucial difference between the two questions. “Rich” is a relative term: If everyone had the same amount of money, no one would be rich, you need someone to be worse off (poor) to have someone better off (rich). But someone enjoying their work has no bearing on someone else’s enjoyment of theirs.

you need someone to be worse off (poor) to have someone better off (rich).

The fact that so many people believe this is what bums me out.

You need to understand something: the people who want you to think this way do not have your best interests in mind, any more than the rabid right-wing Trumpers do.

You completely misunderstood the point.

In no way do I mean that someone has to suffer for someone else to thrive. We could (and should) all thrive and have our needs met.

I’m just saying the term is relative, like “tall” and “short”. If we were all the same height, no one would be tall or short, we’d just be. If we all had the same amount of money, no one would be rich or poor.

An economy isn't a zero-sum game. Wealth doesn't just pop into existence when someone in the government clicks a button on a screen. Money is created that way, but wealth isn't. It has to be created by creating something that someone else values enough to pay for willingly.

No one has to lose anything, in the sense that no one has to give up more than they think the product or service is worth to them. In your example, it's possible for everyone to grow taller.

Wealth, like gravity, distorts everything around it with excessive concentration.

It matters little how wealth is created. No one has to lose anything for the excessive concentration of wealth to cause the lives of everyone to be worse.

> No one has to lose anything

For the third time, that is not the argument. Read what I wrote and try to steal man a bit. Get your preconceived argument out of your head and understand we are in agreement. The difference between wealth and money isn’t in question, that is something you just added to the argument and decided with zero basis that I disagree.

The fact that so many people jump to conclusions and immediately dunk on others who agree with them is what bums me out.

What a waste of a conversation. Why are you spending time criticising those who support the same points?

What a waste of a conversation. Why are you spending time criticising those who support the same points?

All I know is what you wrote, sorry. Same shit we could all read on Reddit: "If everyone had the same amount of money, no one would be rich, you need someone to be worse off (poor) to have someone better off (rich)."

If you frequently find yourself misunderstood in this way, work on expressing yourself more clearly.

> All I know is what you wrote

By your own admission, you read my words and associated them with other conversations had by other people on another website. In other words, “all you know” is the preconceived bias you have in your head leading you to rushed wrong assumptions.

> If you frequently find yourself misunderstood in this way

I don’t, no. There you go again, making unsubstantiated claims based on faulty assumptions.

> work on expressing yourself more clearly.

You were obviously the only person confused. That makes it abundantly clear the problem wasn’t with my explanation but your comprehension. Perhaps a little humbleness on your part is in order, as opposed to, you know, doubling-down on your own misinterpretation despite having been spoon fed multiple clarifications.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com