This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The best UI for an AI agent is likely to be a well-documented public API, which in theory will allow for much more flexibility in terms of how users interact with software. In the long run, the model could look something like your AI agent generating custom interface on the fly, to your specifications, tailored for whatever you're doing at the moment. Could be a much better situation for power users than the current trend toward designing UI by A/B testing what will get users to click a particular button 3% more often.
Well this circles my point. If we got to that then we have such a fast and powerful AI, software isn't even on our mind. But even as we get closer to that, the entire SaaS ecosystem will start to collapse. If fundamental functionality from UX to API communication relies on an LLM, unbounded by underlying code bases, niche software vendors won't have anything to differentiate themselves.
I think we are already starting to see some collapses in the space I work in where, each vendor is completing to be nothing but a chatgpt terminal wtih some lipstick
It goes way beyond SaaS, in general agents are going to be the moment where everybody starts finally realizing that language models are going to automate all white collar labor very very soon (robotics / multimodal stuff for complex manual labor might take another 12-18 months, but no longer). Emergency lawmaking is only a short time away, in all likelihood.
Sure, my point is that in my corner of the world, I’m already seeing signs of breakdown. The bubble is extremely fragile because it’s self consuming. I am stuck being asked to sign contracts and make decisions on software that I have no confidence will remain viable or a front runner by the time we get fully implemented.
The rate of change is already too fast and unpredictable to make business decisions on anymore. The landscape’s moving faster than sales cycles.
More options
Context Copy link
This seems awfully optimistic (or pessimistic, I don't know), you have to actually get the materials, build the robots, deploy them, and real world feedback is much slower.
I'd say it takes 5-10 years.
I'm even more pessimistic. There's no decent "human hand" robots, anywhere, at any price point. Drop the weight requirements, because you'd be glad to stationary mount it? No product. Drop the strength requirement, because you'd be glad to 'just' have the dexterity and the tactile sensitivity? No product.
AI design assistance or not, it's a surprisingly difficult hardware problem. And that's a billion jobs, right there.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well, that's it then. The 99%, including myself, are about to be obsolete. Mottizen members of the global elite, enjoy the nigh-fully automated world you are about to inherit. I'd ask you to remember us peasants in your gleaming future of crystal spires and togas, but of course you'll be too busy wireheading yourselves into only slightly delayed extinction. See you on the other side, we'll reserve some nice spots for you.
We’re all going to be obsolete. There is no world in which the rich let everyone starve because it would lead to an extreme collapse in demand and a deflationary spiral that would quickly bankrupt them. In the end you just have what, Sam Altman and Elon Musk in a bunker? AI driven abundance means it will cost negligible amounts to feed, house and clothe first-world publics. Developing countries will struggle more, but even there I don’t think it will be as bad as @self_made_human thinks.
But capitalism, or at least this current form of it, is going to end, probably much sooner than almost anyone thinks. Personally, I’m spending my money while I have it.
and
and
seem at odds. The end of capitalism is also the end of needing consoomers to keep the rich rich. Even if cost of keeping them alive materially is driven down to zero, they are still going to compete for land, political voice, and social heirarchy, without providing anything back. It might be a peaceful transition, but as long as we are earthbound, it seems this scenario would make >a few million humans completely negative value. Transhumanism would further make the billions of humans nothing more than space wasters.
We've already got tons of negative value humans, and in some of the richest places on earth they just let them do whatever they want.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As an intermediate state, you are probably right. But it won't last, not in the long run. The truly useless doesn't stick around. The world will find a way to wipe us out when we're no longer relevant to maintaining our own existence.
I believe the universe has Garbage Collection.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link