Comment by dwa3592
5 hours ago
People have been made to believe by very influential people (dario, sam, elon etc) that AI will replace them. As a result people are getting angry. Who did not see this coming?
Why da f*#$ do they have to continue developing a technology which they think will replace droves of people by machines?? There is nothing sexy about it. There is nothing cool about it either.
Imagine a taxi driver facing his family knowing he will be replaced by a machine fully; imagine that taxi driver thinking that there are slick graduates from top schools who wake up everyday (waymo, tesla, zoox) with one goal in mind - let's automate this taxi driver.
The anger against AI/Tech is just starting really.
I think they just don't care that the people are mad. The equation doesn't include workers. It actively excludes them.
Because no sane person would pitch a product that would put you out of work, it seems surprising to us to hear that pitch. But the pitch isn't to us; we're not part of the equation. We're passive listeners between uncaring, unfeeling parties who only value one thing, and that thing ain't us.
> The anger against AI/Tech is just starting really.
That seems like a pretty safe bet at this point.
Aside from one health insurance company CEO, why should they care that the common people are angry with them? It doesn't stop them from doing whatever the hell they want. Even if it's illegal (looking at you memphis data center gas generators)
> Aside from one health insurance company CEO, why should they care that the common people are angry with them?
Because the frustration builds up. Either we'll see a few more CEOs facing street justice, or we will see candidates getting elected in the primaries that make Sanders and Mamdani combined look like burgeoise (aka, people will actually elect legitimate full on socialists or communists) - and the latter is the actually more dangerous scenario for the ultra rich.
>Who did not see this coming?
The general vibe of the internet at least for the last 20 years has been "Work sucks, play is fun, give whatever technology minimizes my need to work and maximizes my wealth and free time"
All these same guys have also talked about the need for UBI, so they basically have been promising the dream of the liberal internet: No work, free money, do whatever you want in your life.
The viability of this dream is pretty debatable, but it definitely checks all the boxes of the internet hivemind as of ~3-4 years ago.
Are vibecoders working less? I don't think so. I've seen people with a dozen Claude windows open, and I'd rather go dig mud than working like that. There is no universe where you can call that programming despite the end product still being source code.
The people that have won are not the lazy ones. It's the preppy work-hard-not-smart guys high on ADHD medication that feel like gods having a dozen machines spew out millions of lines of code per day, instead of just sitting on a hammock and thinking the easiest way to achieve the goal, with the least amount of effort.
That said, the shift away from 'the best engineer is the lazy engineer' ethos has happened a decade+ ago.
We are likely still in the the early days of AI. We're playing with computers circa 1975 talking about how it will impact humanity.
Just because people are angry does not make it false.
> Why da f*#$ do they have to continue developing a technology which they think will replace droves of people by machines??
Because arms race.
Game dynamics and incentive structures don't cease to exist just because someone notices them.
All those devs and data scientists and PhDs make a choice though. They could quit and work somewhere else. Even in a tough market their skills are in demand. They choose to work on this every morning.
There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part; you can’t even passively take part, and you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop. And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all! (from Mario Savio)
Sure, they could do that. The outcome wouldn't change, though.
If SW devs who worked on ride sharing apps didn't leave, why would you think these folks would?
If SW devs who worked on airline ticket search engines didn't leave, why would you think these folks would?
And on and on and on. The SW industry has been heavily involved in replacing jobs since its inception.
> Why da f*#$ do they have to continue developing a technology which they think will replace droves of people by machines?? There is nothing sexy about it. There is nothing cool about it either.
This argument alone doesn't really work because literally billions of peoples jobs and livelihoods have been replaced throughout history from the explicit development of technology that replaces the need for human labor.
The question should not be whether the technology replaces people by machines, it should be whether it provides a net benefit overall. You could use this argument to say we should have never invented the printing press if you only thought of the people who used to manually transcribe books and documents.
Yes, but it's trivially obvious that AI is different from previous technological automation, since with AI it's ALL jobs being automated, starting with white collar ones, not just some narrow segment.
What was true with previous automation, that some jobs disappear, but new ones are created in their place, will not be true of AI, because AI is a general purpose technology capable of doing the new jobs it creates just as well as the old ones it displaces.
I agree was going to comment that yes it does feel slightly different because in most cases technology narrowly targeted specific niches at the time, that when replaced could at least in hindsight be seen to likely benefit the majority at the cost of the existing laborers.
Whereas in this case most of the top brass of AI do push it as something more akin to "we think this will replace practically all human labor". And without the availability of human labor, at least given the current economic system its hard to see how that'd lead to anything but mass suffering.
I do think the argument still holds. If we were able to see it as a net benefit to all, it would still be worth it. Its just that with the level of replacement we're talking about the net benefit would need to be massive (however we define "benefit") The problem is there is plenty of research showing it is still net negative in many cases, especially (in my opinion) when it comes to cognitive ability and early stage development for children/youth.
The closest similarity may be the development of the personal computer or something along those lines.
1 reply →
> The question should not be whether the technology replaces people by machines, it should be whether it provides a net benefit overall.
That's just treating the very real, living people, who exist right now, and can read your words, as if they're already dead.
> You could use this argument to say we should have never invented the printing press
So, what displaced person will you swap your livelihood with? After all, if it's just about the general arc of progress, and the individual lives don't matter, why not sacrifice yours for that of someone else? The same could be said to those who say "there will always be inequality", life is unfair, etc... it all sounds great but it's really just more words for "fuck you, got mine" IMO.
Nowhere in my argument do I contend it may not affect myself. In fact I have basically already accepted its very likely I'll be replaced due to AI in the very near future. Thats just the unfortunate reality of things at the individual level.
So yes, I do agree it sucks for lots of people living in the moment.
I mention in some other comments that yes, AI "visionaries" make the level of replacement seem to be on a scale almost never before seen and so the "benefit" for the majority would have to be absolutely massive (however we define benefit). And currently its hard to see how it could reach that level. I was just noting we cannot "only" see it through the lens of replacement. If for example billionaires (trillionaires now?) did actually spread the benefit and we overhauled the economic systems in much of the world for humanity it _might_ actually be a benefit. Its just hard to see this ever happening given history.
I definitely have not "gotten mine" like the billionaires pushing AI. But other inventions in hindsight have very clearly benefited humanity as a whole even with the unfortunate effects on the people of the time.
1 reply →
> This argument alone doesn't really work because literally billions of peoples jobs and livelihoods have been replaced throughout history from the explicit development of technology that replaces the need for human labor.
This argument alone works just fine. If you explicitly threaten billions of people that you will make them redundant then you better focus on building a guillotine proof neck.
>>This argument alone doesn't really work because literally billions of peoples jobs and livelihoods have been replaced throughout history from the explicit development of technology that replaces the need for human labor.
"throughout history" - go look at the time it took to replace those jobs. how those jobs were replaced. A trillion dollars will be put into investment this year to put AI in everything. People who's companies those money is going to are actively saying there will be 20-30% job loss.
>>The question should not be whether the technology replaces people by machines, it should be whether it provides a net benefit overall.
Define 'net benefit overall'. Does overall include people who's job is getting automated? How skewed the benefit is towards some b(t)illionaires?
I wrote in a separate comment elsewhere that I don't really disagree that the current top brass of AI push it as something that would replace people on a much larger degree than most other technology, but that in my opinion the argument does hold - where if we did see it as a net benefit greater than the loss it would still be worth it, and that is the measurement we should be using. But yes, given the level of replacement the net benefit would have to be absolutely massive.
And yes, "net benefit" is hard to measure for an unrealized/developing product.
So I don't disagree with you. In the current economic system where we need human labor (in the majority of the world) to make a living, its hard to see the current vision of AI by those in charge to lead to anything but mass suffering.
AI will quickly turn the world into an even greater disparity between the "haves" and the "have nots" with its current vision.
> The question should not be whether the technology replaces people by machines, it should be whether it provides a net benefit overall
I like this framing.
But I wish more people would acknowledge that genAI offloads thinking in ways that the printing press, the loom, the calculator, and the computer never did.
I find a net benefit to be extremely unlikely, but the devil's in the details. We'd have to define "benefit" and that's already a big kettle of worms.
We cannot talk about net benefit until we agree on the objective: net benefit for whom?
I don't care if my current job is being replaced or the whole industry I am working in vanishes. But as an individual, if the new technology says it aims to wipe out all the possibilities of my future career, it is not net benefit for me.
Just saying "net benefit" "overall" sounds like some collectivism propaganda.
>doesn't really work because literally billions of peoples jobs and livelihoods have been replaced throughout history
And it entailed social unrest every time.
> Why da f*#$ do they have to continue developing a technology which they think will replace droves of people by machines??
Say, you wouldn't happen to write software for a living, would you?
I do. developed predictive models for health monitoring of large machines and then fraud detection in health care. Why do you ask?
Does automated fraud detection not replace the work of human auditors? Do these large machines automate tasks? If you believe automating human labor is an evil, then I hate to break it to you, your in hell's chatroom. "Software is eating the world" was published 15 years ago. What did you think that meant?
1 reply →
Not the GP, but I used to do. And I share the sentiment even though I'm out of the game.
> Imagine a taxi driver facing his family knowing he will be replaced by a machine fully; imagine that taxi driver thinking that there are slick graduates from top schools who wake up everyday (waymo, tesla, zoox) with one goal in mind - let's automate this taxi driver.
Back when self-driving cars still seemed imminent and Musk hadn't started losing his teflon coating, I asked an actual taxi driver his thoughts about self-driving.
He was looking forward to it.
This surprised me, until I found LLMs were automating coding and found I felt not too different about my own career.
Presumably your POV depends on whether you believe the capability of AI will somehow stop at coding, so you'll still have your job with a cool new tool, or whether AI will replace your job altogether, in which case perhaps you are planning a career pivot to taxi driver?
Ironically, developers may turn out to be easier to replace than taxi drivers. We've seen technological progress replaced workers or made certain roles obsolete, and this may become another example. I hope governments and public institutions take a more active role in supporting people going through the transition.
Good to know we can maybe count on the government to send us a few 1000 dollar checks on the way to the human zoo.
I'm hoping I get assigned to the nice terrafoam housing that they build before they start drastically cutting corners.
>Why da f*#$ do they have to continue developing a technology which they think will replace droves of people by machines??
There is a lot of money to be made in the destruction of civilisation.
> People have been made to believe by very influential people (dario, sam, elon etc) that AI will replace them. As a result people are getting angry. Who did not see this coming?
Cal Newport calls this "Doom-Trolling" — there was an NYT article, he has talked about it on his youtube channel and there was an actually really great, long discussion with Ed Zitron about it where Ed covered a lot more topic ground than he has been focussed on lately.
He makes the case that this fear-based marketing is causing real harm and unnecessary anxiety and is basically despicable.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/17/opinion/ai-dangerous-open...
Thank you!
[dead]