[0xEF]

I was once in your camp, thinking there was some sort of middle-ground to be had with the emergence of Generative AI and it's potential as a useful tool to help me do more work in less time, but I suppose the folks who opposed automated industrial machinery back in the day did the same.

The problem is that, historically speaking, you have two choices;

1. Resist as long as you can, risking being labeled a Luddite or whatever.

2. Acquiesce.

Choice 1 is fraught with difficulty, like a dinosaur struggling to breathe as an asteroid came and changed the atmosphere it had developed lungs to use. Choice 2 is a relinquishment of agency, handing over control of the future to the ones pulling the levers on the machine. I suppose there is a rare Choice 3 that only the elite few are able to pick, which is to accelerate the change.

My increased cynicism about technology was not something that I started out with. Growing up as a teen in the late-80's/early-90's, computers were hotly debated as being either a fad that would die out in a few years or something that was going to revolutionize the way we worked and give us more free time to enjoy life. That never happened, obviously. Sure, we get more work done in less time, but most of us still work until we are too broken to continue and we didn't really gain anything by acquiescing. We could have lived just fine without smartphones or laptops (we did, I remember) and all the invasive things that brought with it such as surveillance, brain-hacking advertising and dopamine burnout. The massive structures that came out of all the money and genius that went into our tech became megacorporations that people like William Gibson and others warned us of, exerting a level of control over us that turned us all into batteries for their toys, discarded and replaced as we are used up. It's a little frightening to me, knowing how hyperbolic that used to sound 30 years ago, and yet, here we stand.

Generative AI threatens so much more than just altering the way we work, though. In some cases, its use in tasks might even be welcomed. I've played with Claude Code, every generative model that Poe.com has access to, DeepSeek, ChatGPT, etc...they're all quite fascinating, especially when viewed as I view them; a dark mirror reflecting our own vastly misunderstood minds back to us. But it's a weird place to be in when you start seeing them replace musicians, artists, writers...all things that humanity has developed over many thousands of years as forms of existential expression, individuality, and humanness because there is no question that we feel quite alone in our experience of consciousness. Perhaps that is why we are trying to build a companion.

To me, the dangers are far too clear and present to take any sort of moderate position, which is why I decided to stop participating in its proliferation. We risk losing something that makes us us by handing off our creativity and thinking to this thing that has no cognizance or comprehension of its own existence. We are not ready for AI, and AI is not ready for us, but as the Accelerationists and Broligarchs continue to inject it into literally every bit of tech they can, we have to make a choice; resist or capitulate.

At my age, I'm a bit tired of capitulating, because it seems every time we hand the reigns over to someone who says they know what they are doing, they fuck it up royally for the rest of us.

[senordevnyc]

Maybe the dilemma isn’t whether to “resist” or “acquiesce”, but rather whether to frame technological change as an inherently adversarial and zero sum struggle, versus looking for opportunities to leverage those technologies for greater productivity, comfort, prosperity, etc. Stop pushing against the idea of change. It’s going to happen, and keep happening, forever. Work with it.

And by any metric, the average citizen of a developed country is wildly better off than a century or two ago. All those moments of change in the past that people wrung their hands over ultimately improved our lives, and this probably won’t be any different.

[Capricorn2481]

> and this probably won’t be any different

It's just exhausting to read the 1000th post of people saying "If we replace jobs with AI, we will all be having happy times instead of doing boring work." It's like reading a Kindergartner's idea of how the world works.

People need to pay for food. If they are replaced, companies are not going to make up jobs just so they can hire people. They are under no responsibility or incentive to do that.

It's useless explaining that here because half of the shills likely have ulterior reasons to be obtuse about that. On top of that, many software developers are so outside the working class that they don't really have a concept of financial obligation, some refusing to have friends that aren't "high IQ", which is their shorthand for not poor or "losers".

[senordevnyc]

I’m sure it must be exhausting, but nobody said that.

[0xEF]

Your profile: Former staff software engineer at big tech co, now focused on my SaaS app, which is solo, bootstrapped, and profitable.

Yep. Makes sense.

> And by any metric

Can you cite one? Just curious. I enjoy when people challenge the idea that the advancement of tech doesn't always result in a better world for all because I grew up in Detroit, where a bunch of car companies decided that automation was better than paying people, moved out and left the city a hollowed out version of itself. Manufacturing has returned, more or less, but now Worker X is responsible for producing Nx10 Widgets in the same amount of time Worker Y had to produce 75 years ago, but still gets paid a barely livable wage because the unchecked force of greed has made it so whatever meager amount of money Worker X makes is siphoned right back out of their hands as soon as the check clears. So, from where I'm standing, your version of "improvement" is a scam, something sold to us with marketing woo and snake oil labels, promising improvement if we just buy in.

The thing is, I don't hate making money. I also don't hate change. Quite the opposite, as I generally encourage it, especially when it means we grow as humans...but that's generally not the focus of what you call "change," is it? Be honest with yourself.

What I hate is the argument that the only way to make it happen is by exploiting people. I have a deep love technology and repair it in my spare time for people to help keep things like computers or dishwashers out of landfills, saving people from having to buy new things in a world that treats technology as increasingly disposable, as though the resources used to create are unlimited. I know quite a bit about what makes it tick, as a result, and I can tell you first hand that there's no reason to have a microphone on a refrigerator, or a mobile app for an oven. But you and people like you will call that change, selling it as somehow making things more convenient while our data is collected, sorted and we spend our days fending of spam phone calls or contemplating if what we said today is tomorrow's thought crime. Heck, I'm old enough to remember when phone line tapping was a big deal that everyone was paranoid about, and three decades later we were convinced to buy listening devices that could track our movements. None of this was necessary for the advancement of humanity, just the engorgement of profits.

So what good came of it all? That you and I can argue on the Internet?

[senordevnyc]

Metrics: life expectancy, infant mortality, maternal mortality, extreme poverty, access to clean water, access to adequate calories, medical care, literacy, education, likelihood of being murdered, disposable income, on and on. Take your pick.

The fact that you’d even ask me to share a metric of how someone from a century or two is worse off tells me all I need to know about whether you’re able to engage in good faith here. Ditto for the low effort ad hominem attack you opened with.

But by all means, carry on with your tilting at the windmills of change.

[benjiro]

Maybe its just me, but i often feel that the issue in these debates is not that we give up creativity but people unwillingness to change their creativity.

When PCs came around, people looked down on the idea of painting on a screen. Some stubborn held on to their easel, while the often younger generation embraced the new tech, and made their carriers.

LLMs are the same ... We have people who are stubborn and still want to do everything on their easel and good for them. But those that adapted, will turn out more work and eventually replace most of the die hards in the workplace. Sure, there will be people who are needed, just like we had Fortran programmers 50 years later making bank, or painters who make bank.

But the idea that it makes us less creative is stupid. Did PCs make us less creative in painting? No, we got a ton of new media and changes. We adapted to the tools and possibilities.

O, PCs came on the market, well, no way somebody is going to use that to make ... MUSIC ... you only do that with real instruments. Que entire generation of techno, movie music etc all made digitally. You did not need to be a directory, know how to play dozens of different instruments to make insane pieces of music. You used your creativity to use the tools at your disposal !

The fact that you can now do the work in a few weeks, that will have taken you a year as a programmer, that opens up the doors for more creativity. Prototyping a idea does not take months, but days. It changes the industry...

Why do i need to pay license cost for a piece of software that is "enterprise", when i can now make the same level of software in a few weeks. It actually take the power away from big corporations, sure, you rely on the tool, and whoever is behind the tool for now (like anthropic etc) but as time moves forwards, more hardware will become more powerful, and LLMs will be more in the open source, ...

Remember what i said about music ... hey, maybe creative people will be able to make music that is different thanks to AI. Hey, you wanted to make a Magic The Gathering game but the art was a delima, ... LLMs suddenly open the door to make new products, and change the industry away from large corporation where the entry fee is high.

We are on a threshold of change, those that stay behind and think it kills creativity, never really used the new tools.

I am writing software right now, that will have took me a year to write. It duplicates the function of some enterprise software that will have cost me insane money. BUTTTTTT, because i now control this software, i can add features that i always found lacking or missing, because that enterprise software only looked at the companies, now what somebody like me may need.

All for the low low price of barely $40, what is probably 70~100k in developer cost. That is still being creative, i made something new using a existing idea, with my own touches to it. But i used a tool for it... Eventually, my code if open source, may be used in other LLMs to improve them. What in turn makes them smarter and maybe some of my idea get used by others.

This is frankly how we as the human race advanced, not by stagnating and not embracing change, but by often copying, improving, using our creativity. Does that mean i need to know how a LLM works? No, just like do not need to know how a bread slicer works, ...

Anyway, ... this discussion is never going to end, because there is always resistance to change. I remember my parents about smartphones, ... guess who uses them, even at their old age. Eventually some power always get consolidated but for now, with the progress i am seeing in the open source/open weights LLM progress, there will been a escape hatch for those that do not want to be linked to specific corporations, just like Linux etc exists.