[munificent]

Think about the Industrial Age transition from individual craftspeople working on small shops using hand tools to make things into working in factories on large-scale assembly lines. The latter is wildly more productive than the former. If you owned a business that employed a bunch of cobblers, then moving them all out of their little shops into one big factory where they can produce 100x as many shoes means you just got yourself 100x richer.

But for an individual cobbler, you basically got fired at one job and hired at another. This may come as a surprise to those who view work as simply an abstract concept that produces value units, but people actually have preferences about how they spend their time. If you're a cobbler, you might enjoy your little workshop, slicing off the edge of leather around the heel, hammering in the pegs, sitting at your workbench.

The nature of the work and your enjoyment of it is a fundamental part of the compensation package of a job.

You might not want to quit that job and get a different job running a shoe assembly line in a factory. Now, if the boss said "hey, since you're all going to be so much more productive working in the factory, we'll give you all 10x raises" then perhaps you might be more excited about putting down your hammer. But the boss isn't saying that. He's saying "all of the cobblers at the other companies are doing this to, so where are you gonna go?".

Of course AI is a top-down mandate. For people who enjoy reading and writing code themselves and find spending their day corralling AI agents to be a less enjoyable job, then the CEO has basically given them a giant benefits cut with zero compensation in return.

[frizlab]

Yup. It’s what I’ve come to realize. My job is probably safe, as long as I will be willing to adapt. I have still not even tried AI once, and don’t care for it, but I know at one point I probably will have to.

I don’t actually think it’ll be a productivity boost the way I work. Code has never been the difficult part, but I’ll definitely have to show I have included AI in my workflow to be left alone.

Oh well…

[LPisGood]

Why have you never even _tried_ it? It’s very easy to try and surely you are somewhat curious.

[agentultra]

I've never had to try lots of things in order to know that I won't like them.

[frizlab]

That, and also I specifically loathe the way AI has been created.

In my heart I’m a code “artist,” and like all artists that have been more directly attacked, I also feel personally attacked by all of my stolen “art” that is now monetized by big corporations that do not give a single f*ck about beauty in the code, or whatever.

This may be a strange position, idk. Anyways, that’s the reason why.

[agentultra]

You’re not wrong about it being stolen and monetized without consent. I’m picking up what you’re putting down.

[LPisGood]

Yeah but the cost of trying it is like 3 minutes of your time. Have you no curiosity?

[agentultra]

Enough curiosity to have read and understood the papers, formalize some of the more grand theorems (they’re not that impressive once restated this way), and listen to the experiences of developers who’ve adopted it.

That’s more than 3 minutes. I’m not being glib when I say I’ve given it serious thought.

[ndespres]

Not for this, no.

[wiseowise]

Agree with every word.

> Of course AI is a top-down mandate. For people who enjoy reading and writing code themselves and find spending their day corralling AI agents to be a less enjoyable job, then the CEO has basically given them a giant benefits cut with zero compensation in return.

This should be a disclaimer every time someone at work forces you to use AI.

Interesting how when WFH became "the norm" during COVID, there were thousands of apologists arguing that employees suddenly received perks for nothing. Where are all of you now? Why aren't you arguing against employer doing a fucking rug pull?

[Sevii]

The industrial revolution was extremely hard on individual craftspeople. Jobs became lower paying and lower skilled. People were forced to move into cities. Conditions didn't improve for decades. If AI is anything comparable it's not going to get better in 5-10 years. It will be decades before the new 'jobs' come into place.

[shimman]

Seriously, it took nearly ~150 years before the people actually benefited from the industrial revolution. Saying that we need to condemn two lifetimes worth of suffering to benefit literally a few thousand people out of billions is absolutely ludicrous.

[wiseowise]

But think about corporate aristocracy and their children!

[munksbeer]

This is basically not true. It's hard to debate this when we don't start from a position of truth.

[shimman]

It pretty much is, unless you think it's totally cool to work in highly dangerous jobs that paid poorly while being treated like chattel slaves. There is a reason why the 1800s had the most violent labor actions in the US, it wasn't because they were treated "well."

Completely disingenuous, learn your labor history.

[munksbeer]

People didn't feel the benefits for 150 years? Just absolute nonsense.

[RyanOD]

Unfortunately, I would expect the boss to say, "hey, since you're all going to be so much more productive working in the factory, we'll give you all 10x the shoes to repair".

[N_Lens]

The reward for working hard is more hard work.

[MontyCarloHall]

>Think about the Industrial Age transition from individual craftspeople working on small shops using hand tools to make things into working in factories on large-scale assembly lines.

I wouldn't analogize the adoption of AI tools to a transition from individual craftspeople to an assembly line, which is a top-down total reorganization of the company (akin to the transition of a factory from steam power to electricity, as a sibling commenter noted [0]). As it currently exists, AI adoption is a bottom-up decision at the individual level, not a total corporate reorganization. Continuing your analogy, it's more akin to letting craftspeople bring whatever tools they want to work, whether those be hand tools or power tools. If the power tools are any good, most will naturally opt for them because they make the job easier.

>The nature of the work and your enjoyment of it is a fundamental part of the compensation package of a job.

That's certainly a part of it, but I also think workers enjoy and strive to be productive. Why else would they naturally adopt things like compilers, IDEs, and frameworks? Many workers enjoyed the respective intellectual puzzles of hand-optimizing assembly, or memorizing esoteric key combinations in their tricked-out text editors, or implementing everything from scratch, yet nonetheless jumped at the opportunity to adopt modern tooling because it increased how much they could accomplish.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46976955

[munificent]

> As it currently exists, AI adoption is a bottom-up decision at the individual level, not a total corporate reorganization.

I'm sorry, but did you forget what page this comment thread is attached to? It's literally about corporate communication from CEOs reorganizing their companies around AI and mandating that employees use it.

> That's certainly a part of it, but I also think workers enjoy and strive to be productive.

Agreed! Feeling productive and getting stuff done is also one of the joys of work and part of the compensation package. You're right that to the degree that AI lets you get more done, it can make the job more rewarding.

For some people, that's a clear net win. They feel good about being more productive, and they maybe never particularly enjoyed the programming part anyway and are happy to delegate that to AI.

For other people, it's not a net win. The job is being replaced with a different job that they enjoy less. Maybe they're getting more done, but they've having so little fun doing it that it's a worse job.

[MontyCarloHall]

>I'm sorry, but did you forget what page this comment thread is attached to? It's literally about corporate communication from CEOs reorganizing their companies around AI and mandating that employees use it.

That’s exactly my point. The fact that management is trying to top-down force adoption of something that operates at the individual level and whose adoption is thus inherently a bottom-up decision says it all. Individual workers naturally pick up tools that make them more productive and don’t need to be forced to use them from the top-down. We never saw CEOs issue memos “reorganizing” the company around IDEs or software frameworks and mandate that the employees use them, because employees naturally saw their productivity gains and adopted them organically. It seems the same is not true for AI.

[abeppu]

> Now, if the boss said "hey, since you're all going to be so much more productive working in the factory, we'll give you all 10x raises" then perhaps you might be more excited about putting down your hammer.

... is now the moment to form worker cooperatives? The companies don't really have privileged access to these tools, and unlike many other things that drive increased productivity, there's not a huge up-front capital investment for the adopter. Why shouldn't ICs capture the value of their increased output?

[withinboredom]

Blacksmiths pretty much existed until the ‘50s and ‘60s for most of the world, making bespoke tools and things. Then they just vanished, for the most part.

We are probably on a similar trajectory.