AI boosters on this site will be very mad that this person exists, but I'm glad there are people that stick to their principles. Principles that aren't just "productivity" or "efficiency". People can and should have other motives that are just as if not more important.
In this case this person was "responsible for getting five- to 12-year-olds to play football in the Hunter region".
She would have the occasional exposure to children, market to them, gather statistics and survey them. She asked if she could not expose this group to AI and the answer was "no".
Perhaps they can't or refuse to consider ethical arguments surrounding it? It's just tech as-is to them, without externalities (which is disingenuous).
There are a lot of complexities in how to use and interact with AI that are not immediately obvious or easy to put words to. And that nuance isn't something I've seen in HN discussions before, except perhaps on the intracies of the tech itself, never on the human element or ethics of using something. Usually just posturing.
In what world does including AI “improve our workplace for all”?
All I see (as a software developer) is bad developers producing way more bad code which just increases my workload as I need to review it, which in turn they will just feed back into the hallucination machine so I just end up remote prompting something until it is “good enough” and I will fix it properly when I next work on that part of the code base.
Managers push everything to AI and to Southeast Asia trying to get things done cheaper without realizing how much technical debt they are taking on. Worst part is that if this continues actual good workers, like myself, will be fired for slowing down progress and in decade either so will be the bad developers as then the managers can just prompt the code or whole software industry will collapse under all this bad code.
Either way I see no improvement for anyone except the Epstein class.
> The AFL’s refusal to allow Boyle a choice is not unlawful. Employers in Australia can install software on the equipment they own, are exempt from privacy law when handling employee records
I really hate how the excruciatingly overdue reckoning for tech elites and income inequality is turning into this religious schism over AI and datacenters.
We're going to smash the looms rather than figure out how to share them, again.
The underlying issue is really capital ownership, what classifies as capital, protections around it, and how much leverage capital provides on a society and democracy (that part being the most important, IMHO).
Who owns the looms and what they do with them isn’t inherently an issue if all loom owners can do is buy an extra Yacht. Instead they can enforce ungoverned law on society through a combination of disproportionate influence in government and through market forces where private policy (especially at large) become nearly undifferentiated from law (the policy that benefits them becomes so widespread and normalized that alternatives are for all intent and purposes impractical or unreasonable, therefor private policy within a capital ownership domain is law).
But I think you’re right, as always we’re going to focus on the adjacent issues vs addressing the root of the problem.
Pretty sure you misunderstood this person. I don't think they are advocating for the smashing of looms, rather fear that the movement that could redistribute the benefits of this new technology will go down that dark road again.
I also think the reckoning is overdue, maybe it will never come to be.
What reckoning? The reckoning for large scale IP theft, scaling up what they call "ghost work", the usage of natural resources and land which power data centers with no return to the people that depend on those and the already existing predatory and disgusting business practices that they have always partaken in. (I assume)
