Aren’t you just making their point stronger? Effort is what is being replaced here, with some taste and a pile of AI (formerly effort) you can go to the moon.
Not really. The effort required to produce the same result has declined, but it has been on the decline for many decades already. That is nothing new. Of course, in the real world, nobody wants the same result over and over, so expectations will always expand to consume all of your available effort.
If there is some future where your effort has been replaced, it won't be AI that we're talking about.
In other words, it requires a tremendous amount of effort to fully communicate your tastes to the AI. Not everybody wants to expend the time or mental effort doing this! (Once we have more direct brain/computer interfaces, this effort will go down, but I expect it will not be eliminated fully)
This is the second time in two days I've seen a subthread here with folks seemingly debating whether or not defining and communicating requirements counts as work if the target of those requirements is an LLM system.
I'm confused as to why this is even a question. We used to call this "systems analysis" and it was like... a whole-ass career. LLMs seem to be remarkably capable of using the output, but they're not even close to the first software systems sold as being able to take requirements and turn them into working code (for various definitions of "requirements" and "working").
I'm also skeptical that direct brain interfaces would make this any less work; I don't think "typing" or "english" are the major barriers here, anymore than "drafting" is the major barrier to folks designing their own cars and houses... Any fool thinks they know what they need!
At some point, just an idea will be enough for your Neurolink to spawn an agent to create 1000 different versions of your idea along with things that mimic your tendencies. There will be no effort, only choice.
Deciding between 1000 different versions is a lot of effort IMO. With manual coding, you’re mostly deciding one decision point at a time, which is easier when you think about it. It just require foresight which comes from experience
As both a software engineer and a creative, I absolutely do not want 1,000 versions of what I am trying to make generated for me. I don't care if it's free or even cheap. I want to make things.
I know this is a concept deeply alien to a lot of HN's userbase but I did not get into programming or making art to have finished products; that's a necessary function that is lovely when it's reached, but ultimately, I derive my enjoyment from The Process. The process of finding a problem a user has, and solving it.
And yes I'm sure Claude could do it faster than me (and only at the cost of a few acres of rainforest!) but again, you're missing the point. I enjoy the work. That is not a downside to me.
Effort is still (and probably will always be) the hardest thing to replace.
Any time someone says AI can do this, and do that, and blah blah. I say ok, take the AI and go do that.. the barrier to entry is so low you should be able to do whatever you want. And they say, oh, no, I don't want to do that (or can't, or whatever). But it should be able to be done.. And I just nod, and sip my drink, and ...
.. and I'd like to point out these are seasoned professionals that I've seen put in effort into other things in their careers that have the capacity to literally do whatever is they want to do, especially now.. and they choose not to do so, at least not without someone guaranteeing them a paycheck or telling them they have to do it to survive.
I’m not discounting you feeling this way but this argument feels performative or virtue signaling in the same way I’ve had to deal with people making the same argument about “I don’t have kids because children ruin the planet, we all should have less kids”. There are so many “what about”s here that unless the person making the argument is living in tent sustainably growing their own food that it doesn’t feel like it’s intellectually honest.
I was a coach the last two years for this and I found the FIRST program to not be productive or enjoyable for the children or the adults. We all joined for the robotics but 75% of your score is not about robotics, fully 50% is about displays and presentations. On top of that, as others have alluded to, the missions rewarded brute force attempts at perfect replays as opposed to problems solving and didn't get into some of the more interesting sensors available. Add to that the upcoming year is focused on inclusion by relying on vibe coding so which is the opposite direction they should be going.
I hope Lego can find a partner more focused on the robotics and not the pageantry and performance.
I think you’re both right but missing a bigger issue which is the implication that these provided tokens are what the developers will use to develop with, at work “to be more productive”. That’s extra savage, today your work provides you access to AI, in the future you pay for that access out of your own “pocket”. It’s like being a lumberjack and having to bring your own chainsaw and gas.
It's still a big leap from what he actually said to assume that one would be restricted to an individual budget.
It's already variably the case or not (whether 'unlimited' or limited across the whole team) at different companies today.
All he's saying is that he expects to be paying not a couple of hundred a month per employee, or mere thousands, but about half of an employee's salary per employee on LLM usage. The article acts like he said it was going to come out of the employees' pocket directly with a corresponding pay-cut!
It's more like, being a lumberjack, they provide chainsaw but you provide gas. If you don't have tokens, use your muscle! If you have tokens, they promote you to the team lead, and you can sell tokens in the black market.
As a not-conservative with a child in middle school (in CA) this rings true though. We pulled our son out of a highly rated public school essentially because of this, the whole class was taught to the lowest common denominator.
Bavarian attitude towards cannabis always bordered on authoritarianism, ever before weed legalisation became a political mainstream topic.
Police was infamous for kicking in your door if a random copper walked home and smelled weed. "You smell like you got some weed on you" was a popular excuse the cops used at Munich Central Station to fleece everyone they deemed to look like a punk or, worse, Black person.
And the latter, well, it's certainly not a coincidence that the cops asked for, and got, the weapon ban zones in train stations giving them back the authority to fleece people at will, right after the cannabis legalisation came in force last year.
It's not about cannabis, it's not about the guns, it's all about the ability of the fucking cops to abuse their power whenever they goddamn want to, and Bavarian police are notable in Germany for being particularly aggressive and ignorant.
As an alternative perspective I found no good decaf coffee. I tried maybe 8 different coffees, all very well regarded, very hipster, none came close to creating good pour-over coffee. I admit it’s all about expectations but if you’re currently enjoying pretty fancy coffee and want to go decaf you’re going to be disappointed. Decaf black tea was even worse…
Why not both! Delicious caffeinated in the morning, less-delicious-but-still-quite-nice decaf after 12:00. You don’t need to go entirely caffeine-free to enjoy most of the benefits.
You're right in that there is much less variety amongst decaf coffee options, but there are a few good single origins out there.
BlendIn's Los Nogales typica is outstanding. It's the bean that convinced me to go full-decaf two years ago. (I drink caffeinated coffee now.)
Manhattan Coffee Roasters also has El Vergel, which is a good single origin with a dark, chocolatey taste profile. Great as a pour-over or as an espresso.
One Line Coffee in Columbus, OH also has a great decaf single origin. They deliver!
But, yeah, most decaf options are meh at best and pretty bad on average. Starbucks, of all places, has a reliable decaf roast that's alright and consistent.
“It might be true for now…”
“As soon as…”
“It’s just a matter of time…”
I find myself in this type of discussion with AI maximalists where they balk at me suggesting there isn’t much “I” in “AI” and they get upset that I’m not seeing how smart it is and shocked I think it’s impossible… and then they start adding all the equivocation about time horizons. I never said it wasn’t possible eventually, just not right now. If I try to pin people down to a timeline it all of a sudden becomes “surely eventually”…
reply