[krainboltgreene]

I've wasted a lot of time and energy on stuff that doesn't matter, so I can hardly judge anyone else on what they focus on, but man does it feel bad to have community leaders actively focus on building out tooling that is anti-worker. I think the only way I'd feel more conflicted is if Fly.io started building weapons systems for the military. I guess that wouldn't be shocking considering some of their lead's beliefs.

[mrkurt]

It's safe to say that if either Chris or I believed this to be anti worker, we wouldn't be working on it. He's spent the last 10+ years working on Phoenix specifically to improve the lives of the people doing the work.

My experience with software development is maybe different than yours. There's a massive amount of not-yet-built software that can improve peoples' lives, even in teeny tiny ways. Like 99.999% of what should exist, doesn't.

Building things faster with LLMs makes me more capable. It (so far) has not taken work away from the people I work with. It has made them more capable. We can all build better tools, and faster than we did 12 months ago.

Automation is disruptive to peoples' lives. I get that. It decreases the value of some hard earned skills. Developer automation, in my life at least, has also increased the value of other peoples' skills. I don't believe it's anti worker to build more tools for builders.

[krainboltgreene]

> There's a massive amount of not-yet-built software that can improve peoples' lives, even in teeny tiny ways. Like 99.999% of what should exist, doesn't.

We agree on this completely, however you and I know there are plenty of people without jobs in the world who could be employed to do this work. You are spending your finite amount of time on earth working with services that are trying to squeeze the job market (they've said this openly) rather than spending it increasing the welfare of workers by giving them work.

> Automation is disruptive to peoples' lives.

You know the difference between automation and the goals of these companies. You know that they don't want to make looms that increase the productivity of workers, they want to replace the worker so they never have to pay wages again.

[tptacek]

rather than spending it increasing the welfare of workers by giving them work.

Saying the quiet part loud here.

[jonator]

Exactly. And as more software is written, the demand and possible set of softwares increase.

It's really a matter of positive sum/growth mindset vs scarcity/status quo mindset.

[hooverd]

Maybe, but it's zero sum to the people with money. We saw wage growth in the lowest end during the Biden admin and it drove the bosses insane.

[yunwal]

The same logic that would lead one to believe that AI is anti-worker should also lead one to believe that software as a whole is anti-worker.

[krainboltgreene]

Sure, if you don't think about it at all.

[mwcampbell]

The argument you're responding to is effective enough, based solely on the fact that it has led me to second-guess whether I chose the right line of work, that it would be worth expounding on what you think is wrong with it.

[revenant718]

I am inclined to agree with you. Card-carrying socialist and all that. But I wonder if you could share a good-faith rebuttal of this point.

It's more than evident that software has automated away all kinds of wage labor from the aforementioned typist pools to Hollywood special effects model-makers.

What's different now is that it is actually the software creators’ labor that is in danger of automation (I think this is easily overstated but it is obviously true to some degree).

I get that it feels different for us now that OUR ox is the one being gored. And I do think there will be no end of negative externalities from the turn towards AI. But none of that refutes the above respondent's point?

[krainboltgreene]

A few things:

1. Typists are still around and so are special effects model-makers. 2. People who program aren't in danger of automation. 3. These services are entirely unsustainable, they will absolutely not last at their current pace.

The premise of this entire work, detailed by the creator, is to utilize a program to reduce the amount of work a programmer is required to do. They believe ultimately, like most results of improved automation, that this will result in more things we can work on because we have more time. I agree that this would likely be the case! We could also simply make more programmers, could we not? Why haven't we? Do the 18k people homeless in my city tonight not deserve a shot at learning a skill before we even think about making the work easier per person?

Finally, and more to the point, genAI is built by and designed to eliminate workers entirely. The money that goes into those services funds billionaires who seek to completely and totally annihilate the concept of the proletariat. When I make a tool that helps workers at my job do their job better I am not looking to eliminate that person from the company.

[jonator]

You can think of it as just automating the boring tedious stuff so us humans can focus on the harder problems like strategy, direction, design, GTM, etc.

The days are numbered where humans are sitting typing out code themselves.

It's akin to the numbered days of type writer secretaries of the 20th century.

[krainboltgreene]

I know what stories workers in the industry are using to cope with working with capitalists that have explicit goals of eliminating workers.

I'm sure your poor understanding of the history of improved tooling, like "type writer secretaries", will be a soft comfort in the future.

[jonator]

And you don't think capitalism is the reason we have these computer jobs to automate away in the first place?

[krainboltgreene]

No, because I’ve read a history book.

[wturner]

Most tech isn't "Anti worker". What determines pro/anti worker are laws and government policies that reciprocate with the cultural norms we adopt. At the moment, money in U.S. politics is the most anti-worker phenomena I can think of. The ultra wealthy have a monopoly on the incentives that create policy and how our lives are ordered. The only power working people seem to have is the ability to impose consequences via rogue guerilla acts of protest and violence (Luigi Mangion) . Hopefully, AI is a Frankenstein monster the public learns to wield to facilitate more of these "consequences" and upend the monopoly the super wealthy have on policy incentives and change the way politics is funded for good. It's a new world and a Hawaiian or New Zealand doomsday bunker isn't going make a difference.

[leafmeal]

Do you believe making things easier and more accessible is bad for workers? I don't think it inherently is or isn't, it just depends on who benefits from the increased efficiency. I think that's more of a problem with your economic system, or wealth distribution.

Overall I think we would all be happier if efficient machines take away the drudgery of our daily work and allow us to focus on things that really matter to us. . . as long as our basic needs are met.

[krainboltgreene]

> Do you believe making things easier and more accessible is bad for workers?

Nope, I've been doing it for 16 years.