Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It seems like the author hasn't really used the latest models, I wrote my last line of code about a month ago after 20+ years coding. Claude Code can do it for me, better faster and never gets tired etc. Yes I have to keep it on leash but humans coding is over, unless its to learn or for fun.

Actually it's the lower classes that will escape the longest from AI replacing their jobs, unskilled physical work will remain human for a while yet. Whereas any job that can be done remotely is likely to replaced by one or more agents.

 help



AI is good at coding because it is heavily text focused with excellent documentation and a relatively clear binary on works/doesn’t work. I wouldn’t so quickly lump all other kinds of remote work into the same bucket based on your experience coding.

The new robot demos from Unitree make me wonder how many classes of unskilled labor are about to be automated (garbage collection, laundry & dishes, pothole repairs, last mile delivery, simple food preparation…)

Skilled labor still has some legs.


I don't see any humanoid robots around at the moment, whereas a huge number of knowledge based workplaces use non-embodied AI now every day.

Can't wait for silent robots to collect the garbage, human ones seem to enjoy making as much racket as they can.

There are already human-operated robots that collect garbage. Things like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pl9vRCC6V0. If the automated robots end up being anything like that, I wouldn't expect them to be silent.

A lot of low wage work isn't physical

> It seems like the author hasn't really used the latest models

The author addresses this point.

> While I’m sure the technology and its costs will continue to improve, it’s hard to see how that would mitigate most of these harms. Many would just as likely be intensified by greater speed, efficiency, and affordability.

> This sort of technology distributes instability to the many at the bottom, while consolidating benefit at the top—and there has arguably never been a more efficient mechanism for this than AI.

Personally, I'm really tired of every criticism of AI being met with "you haven't tried the latest models". The model isn't the point. It doesn't matter how good it is, it cannot possibly outweigh the harms.

> I wrote my last line of code about a month ago after 20+ years coding

You are exactly the kind of person the author talks about

> To be an AI optimist, I’m guessing you must not be worried about where your next job might come from, or whether you can even find one. The current dire state of the job market, I have to assume, doesn’t scare you. You must feel secure. Maybe it’s because you’ve already made a name for yourself. Maybe you’re known at conferences, or on podcasts. Maybe you’re just senior enough that your résumé opens doors for you.

I fear you've entirely missed the point of the article. Just because you believe you can get value from it, does not make up for the downsides to everyone else, and it's quite literally privilege to ignore that.


The world changes, you either adapt or not. People who saw this coming could have positioned themselves with plan a b/c. No different from when other societal changing technologies arrived in the past. What does crying about it in blog posts achieve.

What "repositioning" did you have to do?

The adoption of AI in society at large is not foregone conclusion. Acting as if it's unstoppable and washing your hands of the consequences is wilful ignorance. But, it doesn't have to be this way. You do have a choice to not use or encourage this technology.

Way too late now, it's out of the bottle. If you don't use it others will. Best we can do is encourage institutions to safeguard its development.

Again, you're assuming it's inevitable.

Think of all of the other public health changes over the years: CFCs, leaded gasolene, asbestos, etc. Apparent miracles of technology that looked unassailable in their ubiquity, and through the blood and tears of many they were all but eliminated.

That's the crux of the article. There are harms, and if you ignore them it's because you don't think it'll affect you.

I'm not trying to be rude, we all make our choices and nobody is a saint. I still eat meat even knowing the damage of the meat industry. But don't pretend you don't have a choice here, or wash your hands of the harms because you feel you won't make a difference.


It's more comparable to the internet, mobile phones and social media. It is likely to cause some harms as well as provide great utility. I disagree it's not inevitable though and I do think the harms can be mitigated, that where the effort should be focused.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: