Not really. It's the new expectation of higher productivity decoupled from a proportional raise in wages that is the worst part of the AI revolution. If we didn't live in a corporatocracy we would see either everyone working less or getting paid more in proportion to productivity increase.
The turning point against pro corporatism for me after years of schooling in economics happened a few years ago from a simple argument that I can’t get out of my head.
Technological advancements in an owner controlled factory leads to fewer employees. The same advancement in a coop leads to more leisure.
I know it’s super simplistic, and ignores pluses and minuses on both sides, but it really seems to sum up a fundamental problem with increasing efficiencies in society, and I can’t help but wonder if we are failing to capture the leisure that society has made possible.
I think you are missing the point, which is that workers lose their skills.
It’s the “no new senior engineers problem”. Seniors are still needed, but if juniors don’t gain the real experience to develop the skills and intuition, they won’t develop professionally into higher skilled seniors.
I see, yeah the article is gated. I think my comment is still relevant. Taking away the repetitive and menial tasks is great. What's not great is how companies in general use this increase in productivity, which includes slashing junior roles. They really don't have to do that. They can keep the junior roles and just have them learn. So it's the same problem from a different perspective.
I largely agree. "Agents" will replace most interfaces, whether it's talking or just UIs there will be an agent coordinating in the background. They don't need to be true agents either (in the sense that they have an inner locus of control that is self-directed). We have the tech already, it just needs to be developed and adopted.
Local AI is the way. It's no surprise they're drying up the hardware market for consumers. I think this is what governments should be focused on, pushing the companies to open source and provide consumer end local AI. I think there is going to be high demand for this, we're still in the beginning.
I'm curious about integrating Jev with testing. You throw it on a loop to check the test results and have the more general AIs fix things until tests pass. I'm sure something like this exists but it now can have more determinism and cheaper.
That should have already happened. The AI companies should had first created a market where people submit there stuff to be included in the training. It would have been slower progress but it would have been better for public adoption and their own reputation. I've heard people are getting paid now, not sure, but they definitely yoinked all the content without permission, when it could have been an entire market around it.
So yeah, I think that's a good idea, and why I want AI to stay away from being used for one-shot creative output. Luckily that is still not very good, at least not for unique and creative applications.
AI is incredible for consumption. Using it as an assistant for summarisation and learning I think is fine. But it should stay very far away from creation of anything.
This article is outlining when the feature is done (as clarified in the first paragraph), not when the software is done. The difference is the feature is a product problem, rather than an implementation of software problem. The software problem is done when the requirements are properly implemented and bugs are fixed or non-existant.
If the question is if the user is liking it, that's a product problem. It's a different domain than the software implementation.
Hmmm. That's an understandable perspective, but I don't think that splitting things up between product and engineering is of much benefit or interest to the end user.
That's fair, and increasingly true as we have AI tools that blur the line more and more. Personally I'd still make the distinction, even though I know the industry likes to blur these two as much as possible, but that's just my preference. I think each of these roles have a chance to specialize in ways that if you're splitting your time between them, that specialization might not happen.
> AI increased the capacity to produce change. The next constraint became our ability to verify it.
Isn't this an inherent contradiction, at least when it comes to the "promise" of AI as an "intelligent" system? If AI can make changes, why can't it verify them?
Yeah I don't trust this push for electrifying everything. The grid does regular brown outs across the US, especially in all the states that want Net Zero by 2030 or whenever, and I want some things to work without electricity. I just think it's insidious they shroud this by talking about asthma, as if these people can't change their own stoves or get better ventilation themselves.
Then just pass a law that says tenants can request the change, especially if they use their own stove. Instead the agenda is removing the entire gas grid and make everything electric. This will strain the grid even more, make both rent and power more expensive and less reliable, and why exactly? Because some people have asthma?
I don't buy it because in CA so many houses/buildings still have asbestos and there is big sign that says "the premises of this building has asbestos and it is toxic" and on the lease you literally sign a disclaimer that says you acknowledge this building has asbestos and it's toxic (living in one for many years is high risk). Yet I don't see a push to rebuild all these buildings, but all of a sudden gas stoves are a problem even though we have gas stoves for centuries? Asking for transparency is reasonable here.
Issue #1 - I don't know if the US could pass a law saying that 2 + 2 = 4 these days.
Issue #2 - Even if a tenant has the spare $$$ lying around to buy an electric stove - rental units with gas stoves are seldom wired for electric. And a whole lotta landlords will find ways to inflict pain on tenants who forced them to drop $$$$ on upgrading things to allow that option.
Yes, I agree that many of the zealots for replacing fossil fuels with electric are poorly connected to practical realities. What I took exception to was your earlier assertion that people could freely chose to switch themselves, or to install serious ventilation systems.
(BTW, you might want to talk to somebody in the asbestos remediation business. IF the asbestos is sealed up and undisturbed, so it doesn't get into the air or lungs, THEN it's completely harmless. The problem is when people or events unseal the asbestos and mix it into the air.)
reply