> If the software engineers strike, who’s going to be left to wrangle the AI?
The scabs who don't strike?
I'm pro-union and unlike the person you are responding to I'm not sure things are "dead in the water", but I do think software developers had a much better leg to stand on to push for unionization a few years ago than they have now (and, probably, going forward).
What "training" do you have to do to get a professional developer to switch LLMs or harnesses? Its literally just download the other one, point it to your code base and start typing into that text box instead of the other one.
IMO the actual prescient call he made early on is to hang on to 60% of the total voting power of the company. I have to imagine there are several points where he'd have been pushed out quite a while ago if he hadn't have done that.
> It is insane that police do not enforce laws against these criminals.
Not that I've known a ton of people who work for local police departments, but the majority of the ones I have known are exactly the type of people who are likely to partake in illegal residential fireworks around the 4th of July.
> This article is probably not accurate. AI allows me to create hugely complex apps.
To prove the article wrong even within the context of AI coding (which wasnt the focus of the article) you would have to present proof that creating these new AI apps resulted in you making lots of new money.
> If physical AI and super intelligence can do "everything" (work with me here) you're free to do small scale things you love. You're also free to raise children at home, work on mega projects, explore the world.
Sounds fantastic(al).
> The alternative is a small subset of an elite inherit the world's wealth, create a prison society of surveillance robots that keep the permanent underclass at bay with video games, tiktoks, and pills.
I have to be honest with you, I'm not sure how anyone could be paying any attention at all to our current socioeconomic reality* and believe that the first alternative is likely to be the way this all goes (unless the issue is eventually forced through a massive, generational, bloody revolt).
(* I am admittedly being US-biased here, some other countries may fare much better)
> The entire rest of the section where you lifted this quote from directly addresses the thing you’re claiming no one will ever even try to address.
Please point me to what I asked for, an example of what this magical new job actually looks like. What does a person with that job do on a day to day basis, in very broad terms. I didn't spot anything like this in the paper.
> And they even close the section by acknowledging that “this time it’s different” might actually be true with AI, and that we simply don’t have enough data to say for sure!
The paper is basically a round-up of three different viewpoints. One of them (Acemoglu) I'm much more in agreement with than the others, and its his contributions you are referencing above.
The quote I pulled came from Briggs. He's the one I want more information from on what these jobs will look like and in what ways these new jobs are safe from AI displacement when the lost jobs they replace are not.
> Key to this view is our expectation that over
the long run AI will create many new jobs even as it
destroys existing ones.
Still waiting for anyone with this viewpoint to offer a single educated guess at what any of these created jobs might look like even in very broad terms.
All I ever see is basically a religious belief that surely something will arise.
I get that previous automation waves have lead to new jobs in the past, but automating knowledge and intelligence is just fundamentally a different thing than anything we have automated in the past and what exactly stops AI from taking those new jobs too as soon as the need for them is recognized?
Not all of them, some of them have just been pushed out of the workforce unwillingly due to ageism while still financially insecure.
I'm all about people being angry with the current situation and pushing for class war, but blanket assumptions about any demographic, including those of a certain age, is not helpful.
Both are abysmal, but as a US citizen bad behavior from Chinese corporations and government is vastly more limited in how negatively it can impact my life in a practical way than bad behavior from US corporations and government.
Nothing under the sun is new, but we do currently live in a time with unprecedented levels of open corruption where nobody seems to feel the slightest amount of guilt for clearly immoral behavior as long as they get away with it.
And even in cases where what you do is explicitly illegal legal enforcement is largely contingent on whether or not whatever corrupt thing you did made you rich enough to pay the Get Out of Jail tax.
> I would recommend anyone starting in fintech to take some time to understand accounting principles and the ledger in a bit more depth than just debits vs credits
Probably good advice (for everyone in fintech, not just programmers) considering the absolute disaster that happened at Synapse. Kind of wild nobody has gone to jail for that.
> Anyone who has worked in tech for any amount of time has signed an NDA. They are not nefarious.
Non-Disclosure agreements to protect a company's legitimate business and trade secrets aren't nefarious.
But I'd argue that Non-Disparagement agreements or non-disparagement clauses that block disclosure of inappropriate personal behavior is, in fact, nefarious.
> it may underestimate the inference margins of Ant/OAI's API pricing.
If true then why are neither Anthropic or OpenAI dropping their API pricing to gain market share when both are clearly doing all sorts of political and PR maneuvering to compete in a cutthroat market?
Since they aren't dropping the API usage prices (and are in fact raising them in a lot of subtle ways) then one of these options almost has to be true: they are still subsidizing inference, training costs are so ridiculously high that they need to make huge profits off inference or collapse in on themselves, or they are price fixing.