[isityettime]

Things like this are (sadly) common (and age-old) problems with automation and computerization. (For a vivid account of this phenomenon, check out the novel _Close to the Machine_, by Ellen Ullman.)

As executives and analysts increasingly use the "AI" craze to push automation and computerization (and layoffs) generally, even aside from AI proper, it should not be surprising that the individuals and groups opposing those moves also use the same labels.

The lack of precision in language here sucks. It sucks for the discourse and it also sucks when it comes to focusing anger and productive energy on the core problems (obfuscation of human responsibility, erosion of human agency, declining institutional flexibility, deprofessionalization, etc.). But it doesn't begin with the critics of AI.

[johnnyanmac]

>The lack of precision in language here sucks.

It's a feature. Or at least, a perk. If they want to claim this new shiny rock is AI and people buy it, then of course it's in their best interest to keep the black box mysterious. Being subterfuge for muddying the discourse of critique is just a nice side bonus.

[HappMacDonald]

But it is only a perk for the scam artists who benefit from that.

Yes, it makes sense that the confusion aligns with their interests, and they are unavoidably a big part of the conversation. But it remains a problem for the non-overlapping group of people who actually value the social contract, and for us finding a solution which helps take one more step to defeat the scammers remains valuable.

[worik]

Yes. It is useful for the scam artists:

X, Open AI and Anthropic, to name three

[lazide]

Near as I can tell, like crypto, 90% of the ‘discussion’ has been taken over by scam artists, and any folks trying to have a non-scam discussion get yelled at by everyone else.

[delusional]

I am very interested in your reading of Close to the Machine. I read it myself a couple of years ago and found it a wonderful telling of the early days of tech, with overtones of the "technology workplace" that were still very true to this day. I did not pick up on any commentary on automation or computerization, outside of the general critique of bureaucratic systems that alienate you from the outcomes of your labor.

Do you have anything I could read to understand your reading better? I would love to be able to dive back into one of my favorite books with a new lead.

[isityettime]

It's in the opening chapter, when the narrator talks about her experience working on a software system for AIDS patients and their medical care providers. The critique is not just of bureaucracy per se— the same bureaucracy, institutionally, exists before and after the implementation of the software system. The difference is that the informal judgment of caseworkers is converted from something fuzzy and flexible into fixed fields, permissions, enumerable and particular relationships, etc., and ultimately results in fewer people being able to access those resources they need.

I remember the novel relating similar themes more generally, which has shaped how I even think of the title after reading the book. Being "closer to the machine" isn't just about working at a lower level; it's about the way working with computer systems reshapes the people developing for them and the people using them. It's about how even "cushy" software companies lean into, hire for, and draw out obsessive, dissociative traits: the included lunches, the laptop you can bring home and continue to work on, the places to nap or crash on-campus.

Maybe a very dark reading, and certainly colored by some of my own experiences in tech and where I was at in my career when I read it. But for me there's absolutely this sense that the need and desire to be "close to the machine" is also something that lures us away from ourselves and from each other.

[randysalami]

To your penultimate part, I remember when I was younger, I always wanted to be a software engineer. Those obsessive, dissociative traits I cultivated because they seemed so welcome at the places which young me wanted to work (Google, Facebook mainly). And those places seemed so right (and paid so well). As I got older, I realized there was way more nuance. What I once thought were strictly virtues to be lauded… had more gray than I imagined. I don’t think a lot of people in our field have or will have that wake-up.

And I think this is a big part of the problem. Being a shell of a human does not lend yourself well to empathy and solidifies your ego and that you are “worth” more than others, reinforced with a lucrative salary, praise, and those perks you mention.