That closing line: Chef's kiss. America in a nutshell.
That closing line:
Where the people who built it told you they don’t think you should have a say. Where they express alarm about the consequences in private and optimism in public. Where they publish white papers calling for radical redistribution while funding super PACs to destroy the politicians who propose it.
Maybe, but I’m wondering how many jobs are purely cognitive in each industry. Much like happened in some US manufacturing centers due to foreign competition, it could be devastating while also...
General-purpose AI threatens cognitive labor comprehensively, across every industry, simultaneously.
Maybe, but I’m wondering how many jobs are purely cognitive in each industry. Much like happened in some US manufacturing centers due to foreign competition, it could be devastating while also being far from “the end of work.”
Communication and spec building. The vast majority of work is often "you said X, did you mean Y". Cut out the person interpreting that, let them just try to jam X through an AI, and you get some...
Communication and spec building.
The vast majority of work is often "you said X, did you mean Y".
Cut out the person interpreting that, let them just try to jam X through an AI, and you get some interesting results.
Those tasks are a big chunk of what I do, and I'd have to agree. Though calling them "non-cognitive" is a definitional error (unless only software development or theoretical mathematics are...
Those tasks are a big chunk of what I do, and I'd have to agree. Though calling them "non-cognitive" is a definitional error (unless only software development or theoretical mathematics are "cognitive").
It might be better to divide out activities that require tacit knowledge/boots on the ground and human interaction, from those reliant on pure reasoning?
I'm in the peculiar middle of programming, implementation, clinical workflow design, physical engineering, QA, documentation, and training, with some support, sales engineering, product and project management thrown in for seasoning. It's the kind of bespoke work that occurs in many fields where technology has to be carefully fitted to human needs and physical/financial reality.
While LLM supplementation works for some tasks, that middle ground is exactly where automation fails. Automating something that hasn't been well understood or defined is a recipe for real-world waste, failure, and dissatisfaction. Tyrannically imposed one-sided "solutions" that don't effectively satisfy any need but profit are a substantial part of why so many people are rejecting our AI future.
It’s often difficult to separate out cognitive versus other aspects of a job when human relationships are involved. For example, some people can learn on their own from reading or doing computer...
It’s often difficult to separate out cognitive versus other aspects of a job when human relationships are involved. For example, some people can learn on their own from reading or doing computer exercises, but there’s more to teaching than that.
Aside of the pictures, which the author already acknowledged as a mistake, this is an excellent read. Idk enough about early leftist history to disapprove what he says of Marxists, because I feel...
Aside of the pictures, which the author already acknowledged as a mistake, this is an excellent read.
Idk enough about early leftist history to disapprove what he says of Marxists, because I feel like lobbing them into the same pool as the USSR, which was an empire with leftist paint on feels a bit off. There's not a tenet of Marxism that requires gulags. That being said, gulags did exist and for the argument the author wants to make, it's sufficient.
Maybe not as an explicit tenet but you can see how it follows naturally from the premises. 1.) Property should be held in common and managed collectively 2.) That property is currently held by...
There's not a tenet of Marxism that requires gulags.
Maybe not as an explicit tenet but you can see how it follows naturally from the premises.
1.) Property should be held in common and managed collectively
2.) That property is currently held by private owners
3.) People tend to feel protective of things they own and will resist attempts to take it from them, necessitating force
Therefore force must be applied to seize said property.
Furthermore, some level of “acquisitive” nature seems inevitable where people are concerned, we will need to continuously apply coercive measures to maintain the material equality of people under the system.
Maybe we don’t need gulags as such, but it’s very hard to imagine how we go from not-communism to communism without cracking some skulls.
That logic feels equally applicable to capitalist systems. Most people want stuff and inequality denies it from them, necessitating force to protect said assets. And that is on a more ongoing...
That logic feels equally applicable to capitalist systems. Most people want stuff and inequality denies it from them, necessitating force to protect said assets. And that is on a more ongoing basis. America has the fifth highest per capital incarceration rate after all.
That’s just property ownership though, because even the people who steal the property initially benefit from a legal framework to protect their own stuff from theft. Absent that you just have...
That’s just property ownership though, because even the people who steal the property initially benefit from a legal framework to protect their own stuff from theft. Absent that you just have warlordism where the violence has to be managed by the holders themselves.
I don’t really see how America’s carceral problem is a “capitalist” thing being as how the US isn’t the only capitalist country and others don’t have the problem. Moreover basically ALL of it is drug offenses, enforcement of which are—if anything—anti-capitalist.
This does not entail gulags even if it does entail violent revolution (which most Marxists do believe afaik). The violence required to seize the means of production is mostly orthogonal to the...
Therefore force must be applied to seize said property.
This does not entail gulags even if it does entail violent revolution (which most Marxists do believe afaik). The violence required to seize the means of production is mostly orthogonal to the existence of gulags, as gulags existed and "flourished" well after the means of production had been seized from private owners. Plenty of Marxists, including even some pretty influential ones, were themselves put in gulags for dissidence.
We can say it doesn’t, but basically every actually existing system ends up inventing them because the structural system that can successfully pursue a violent populist revolution isn’t just going...
We can say it doesn’t, but basically every actually existing system ends up inventing them because the structural system that can successfully pursue a violent populist revolution isn’t just going to get rid of all the cutthroats once it’s in charge. This even happened with the French Revolution where the revolutionary government collapsed, turned into a neo-monarchy, and then reformed into a republic after a lot of back-and-forth.
That closing line:
Chef's kiss. America in a nutshell.
Maybe, but I’m wondering how many jobs are purely cognitive in each industry. Much like happened in some US manufacturing centers due to foreign competition, it could be devastating while also being far from “the end of work.”
What non-cognative tasks are you suggesting would still require human labor if the cognative elements were delegated to bots?
Communication and spec building.
The vast majority of work is often "you said X, did you mean Y".
Cut out the person interpreting that, let them just try to jam X through an AI, and you get some interesting results.
Those tasks are a big chunk of what I do, and I'd have to agree. Though calling them "non-cognitive" is a definitional error (unless only software development or theoretical mathematics are "cognitive").
It might be better to divide out activities that require tacit knowledge/boots on the ground and human interaction, from those reliant on pure reasoning?
I'm in the peculiar middle of programming, implementation, clinical workflow design, physical engineering, QA, documentation, and training, with some support, sales engineering, product and project management thrown in for seasoning. It's the kind of bespoke work that occurs in many fields where technology has to be carefully fitted to human needs and physical/financial reality.
While LLM supplementation works for some tasks, that middle ground is exactly where automation fails. Automating something that hasn't been well understood or defined is a recipe for real-world waste, failure, and dissatisfaction. Tyrannically imposed one-sided "solutions" that don't effectively satisfy any need but profit are a substantial part of why so many people are rejecting our AI future.
It’s often difficult to separate out cognitive versus other aspects of a job when human relationships are involved. For example, some people can learn on their own from reading or doing computer exercises, but there’s more to teaching than that.
Aside of the pictures, which the author already acknowledged as a mistake, this is an excellent read.
Idk enough about early leftist history to disapprove what he says of Marxists, because I feel like lobbing them into the same pool as the USSR, which was an empire with leftist paint on feels a bit off. There's not a tenet of Marxism that requires gulags. That being said, gulags did exist and for the argument the author wants to make, it's sufficient.
Maybe not as an explicit tenet but you can see how it follows naturally from the premises.
1.) Property should be held in common and managed collectively
2.) That property is currently held by private owners
3.) People tend to feel protective of things they own and will resist attempts to take it from them, necessitating force
Therefore force must be applied to seize said property.
Furthermore, some level of “acquisitive” nature seems inevitable where people are concerned, we will need to continuously apply coercive measures to maintain the material equality of people under the system.
Maybe we don’t need gulags as such, but it’s very hard to imagine how we go from not-communism to communism without cracking some skulls.
That logic feels equally applicable to capitalist systems. Most people want stuff and inequality denies it from them, necessitating force to protect said assets. And that is on a more ongoing basis. America has the fifth highest per capital incarceration rate after all.
That’s just property ownership though, because even the people who steal the property initially benefit from a legal framework to protect their own stuff from theft. Absent that you just have warlordism where the violence has to be managed by the holders themselves.
I don’t really see how America’s carceral problem is a “capitalist” thing being as how the US isn’t the only capitalist country and others don’t have the problem. Moreover basically ALL of it is drug offenses, enforcement of which are—if anything—anti-capitalist.
This does not entail gulags even if it does entail violent revolution (which most Marxists do believe afaik). The violence required to seize the means of production is mostly orthogonal to the existence of gulags, as gulags existed and "flourished" well after the means of production had been seized from private owners. Plenty of Marxists, including even some pretty influential ones, were themselves put in gulags for dissidence.
We can say it doesn’t, but basically every actually existing system ends up inventing them because the structural system that can successfully pursue a violent populist revolution isn’t just going to get rid of all the cutthroats once it’s in charge. This even happened with the French Revolution where the revolutionary government collapsed, turned into a neo-monarchy, and then reformed into a republic after a lot of back-and-forth.