>Anthropic never explains they are fear-mongering for the incoming mass scale job loss while being the one who is at the full front rushing to realize it.
Couldn't it also be true that they see this as inevitable, but want to be the ones to steer us to it safely?
Safely in what way? If you ask them to stop, the easy argument is Chinese won’t stop, so they won’t stop.
Essentially they will not stop at all, because even they know no one can stop the competition from happening.
So they ask more control in the name of safety while eliminating millions of jobs in span of a few years.
If I have to ask, how come a biggest risk of potential collapse of our economy being trusted as the one to do it safely? They will do it anyway, and blame capitalism for it
I think the biggest problem is whether Claude could be tricked into doing so. I could see how mass surveillance could be repacked as "summarize my conversations", or autonomous killbots could be playing a video game.
My impression is that it's a lack of remixing. I don't think recreating the exact same joke with different people in the video is particularly novel. It seems less like meme/remix culture and more like how you find a slightly different version of the same item (or literally a repackaged item from the same factory) for sale on Amazon from fifty different "brands" that have random ass names.
The meme could be good. The mixes could be good. But...is that what is actually happening? Or is someone hoping to create their own version that gets view in competition with the original so they can squeeze out some monetization from a trend and hoping the algorithm lotto smiles upon them?
I'm not convinced this is specific to the format (or the platform). Whenever I try to search for a specific meme or gif on google, I find huge numbers of basically identical copies that come from separate sources. I've seen complaints on humor subreddits about how people repeatedly post copies of the same jokes, often without attribution.
Out of curiosity, I asked my wife about this trend specifically, and while she was familiar with the joke, she has yet to see any instance of it on her page. I have to wonder if people who are experiencing stuff like this are mostly just getting stuck in a bubble and not pushing through to other content. There's an argument that learning how to interact with the app to make the algorithm work for you isn't a great experience, but there's a large volume of people who use and enjoy the app without complaining about this issue. I'm not particularly convinced that all of these people have gone numb to brainrot to the point that they enjoy seeing the same joke 20 times in a row compared to them just having a better experience from seeing a wider variety of content.
I liked seeing the same meme because it was fun seeing the same thing be done by different people. Not everyone likes that type of novelty I guess.
> complaints on humor subreddits about how people repeatedly post copies of the same jokes, often without attribution
This feels like a reflection of what the person feels posting on the internet signifies. Are you publishing something, and thus you should attribute sources etc, or are you just having a conversation?
You would never attribute sources when making a joke in real life. I guess you could but it would be a pretty dorky thing to do.
Good points. This basically circles back to my parent comment; it seems like it's just a matter of personal taste, and there's nothing inherently more "brainrot"-y about this format than any others.
> Or is someone hoping to create their own version that gets view in competition with the original so they can squeeze out some monetization from a trend and hoping the algorithm lotto smiles upon them?
Exactlym that's the feeling I get with it.
I noticed a lot of "creators" are constantly repeating the same skit over and over and over too. With different backgrounds etc. Clearly a way to try and get noticed by the algorithm. But also a great way to get them blocked by me of course.
>These companies all hired psychologists to help design systems that maximize dopamine release and introduce loops that drive compulsive behavior.
This seems like the important bit: these systems weren't designed just for enjoyment. They hired experts in habit formation.
I talked to a friend recently about this and she described it as feeling hollow. When she stayed up all night playing a game she really liked, she enjoyed herself and might have had regrets about giving up some sleep, but didn't necessarily regret the time spent. She found is nourishing in some way. Similarly to feeling compelled to keep reading a great book, or even eat an extra bit of something particularly great dessert.
But at the same time, she would describe staying up until 3-4am regularly scrolling TikTok and would just feel awful the next day. She didn't want to be up doing it, it wasn't actually really fun or enjoyable, but she just...did it anyway.
I'll also note that there are games that are designed for maximum addictiveness that probably also leave you feeling "hollow" in the way that TikTok does, too, so this isn't necessarily to say that games are universally different. But it's clear that there's a psychological mechanism that some companies use in their design that is intended to hijack, rather than just provide "fun" or entertainment.
I don't know what we do about that, or how/if it should be regulated in some way, but it's pretty clear that there is a real difference.
You can see how regulatory requirements drive corporate behaviors. Instagram and TikTok in particular behave much differently in Europe or Asia vs the US.
TikTok is very different. Instagram runs an algorithm that delivers consistently better content from my POV.
>AI can be an amazing productivity multiplier for people who know what they're doing.
>[...]
>The "AI replaces humans in X" narrative is primarily a tool for driving attention and funding.
You're sort of acting like it's all or nothing. What about the the humans that used to be that "force multiplier" on a team with the person guiding the research?
If a piece of software required a team of ten to people, and instead it's built with one engineer overseeing an AI, that's still 90% job loss.
For a more current example: do you think all the displaced Uber/Lyft drivers aren't going to think "AI took my job" just because there's a team of people in a building somewhere handling the occasional Waymo low confidence intervention, as opposed to being 100% autonomous?
Where I work, we're now building things that were completely out of reach before. The 90% job loss prediction would only hold true if we were near the ceiling of what software can do, but we're probably very, very far from it.
A website that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in 2000 could be replaced by a wordpress blog built in an afternoon by a teenager in 2015. Did that kill web development? No, it just expanded what was worth building
> If a piece of software required a team of ten to people, and instead it's built with one engineer overseeing an AI, that's still 90% job loss.
Yes, but this assumes a finite amount of software that people and businesses need and want. Will AI be the first productivity increase where humanity says ‘now we have enough’? I’m skeptical.
> Yes, but this assumes a finite amount of software that people and businesses need and want.
A lot of software exists because humans are needy and kinda incompetent, but we needed to enable to process data at scale? Like, would you build SAP as it is today, for LLMs?
This is all inevitable with the trajectory of technology, and has been apparent for a long time. The issue isn't AI, it's that our leaders haven't bothered to think or care about what happens to us when our labor loses value en masse due to such advances.
Maybe it requires fundamentally changing or economic systems? Who knows what the solution is, but the problem is most definitely rooted in lack of initiative by our representatives and an economic system that doesn't accommodate us for when shit inevitably hits the fan with labor markets.
there's 90% job loss assuming that this is a zero sum type of thing where humans and agents compete for working on a fixed amount of work.
I'm curious why you think I'm acting like it's all or nothing. What I was trying to communicate is the exact opposite, that it's not all or nothing. Maybe it's the way I articulate things, I'm genuinely interested what makes it sound like this.
Fully agree with your og comment and I didn’t get the same read as the person above at all.
This is a bizarre time to be living in, on one hand these tools are capable of doing more and more of the tasks any knowledge worker today handles, especially when used by an experienced person in X field.
On the other, it feels like something is about to give. All the superbowl ads, AI in what feels like every single piece of copy coming out these days. AI CEOs hopping from one podcast to another warning about the upcoming career apocalypse…I’m not fully buying it.
The optimistic case is that instead of a team of 10 people working on one project, you could have those 10 people using AI assistants to work on 10 independent projects.
That, of course, assumes that there are 9 other projects that are both known (or knowable) and worth doing. And in the case of Uber/Lyft drivers, there's a skillset mismatch between the "deprecated" jobs and their replacements.
Well those Uber drivers are usually pretty quick to note that Uber is not their job, just a side hustle. It's too bad I won't know what they think by then since we won't be interacting any more.
He not implying impermanence is an effective primary argument for killing a community, as in "This community is impermanent, therefore we must destroy it" in a vacuum. Additionally, humans and communities occupy different ranks in a moral hierarchy. I'm not sure your point is coherent.
>Stomach paralysis is apparently a known side effect [1]. There are also lots of anecdotes about lesser (but still foul) digestive surprises that are too unpleasant for me to bother elaborating on here.
These are real, but they're also not permanent, and are why you start on a low dose to evaluate how your body reacts to the medication. My spouse is a long time GLP-1 user (coming up on four years now) and had mild (or more) bouts of several of these digestive related systems.
However, within six months these had greatly diminished. And by the one year mark, even at the highest dose, they were essentially gone and have remained a non-issue since.
You should certainly be mindful of side effects, and follow the recommended dosage scale up, which should be monitored by your doctor.
>I was on my thiccboi swag for the latter half of last year and am presently working it off by rebuilding my fitness base with kettlebells and cardio. I'd rather do this than GLP-1s not because I'm some sort of iron-willed badass so much as I'm simply distrustful of anything that messes with one's metabolism so severely. While these drugs are useful for the morbidly obese and diabetics I simply can't imagine how or why anybody would go on them for aesthetic or off-label purposes.
I do think folks with obesity fall into one of two camps (or somewhere on a spectrum between): those that are in that place because they don't put in any effort, eat whatever they want, don't workout, and so on.
And then there are folks like my spouse. They were able to lose weight in the past, but only through continued suffering. To be "just" overweight, they needed to be working out constantly and in a state of always feeling hungry. They never reached an equilibrium where it wasn't agony to maintain that weight, and after months/years would always rebound.
For them, a GLP-1 was the only thing that ever quieted the food noise. They workout constantly still and are in the best shape of their life. It wasn't entirely the GLP-1, but that gave them the tool to quiet the noise and get to a state where fitness could be fun/sustainable, and now they're killing it.
So, the TL;DR is that some people need this tool, and it's not necessarily an either/or. It can be one part in a series of positive changes that lead to better health and well-being.
>With AI, it is like coding is on GOD mode and sure I can bang out anything I want, but so can anyone else and it just doesn't feel like an accomplishment.
I think it's possible that we'll get to the point where "so can anyone else" becomes true, but it isn't today for most software. There's significant understanding required to ask for the right things and understand whether you're actually getting them.
That said, I think the accomplishment comes more so from the shaping of the idea. Even without the typing of code, I think that's where most of the interesting work lies. It's possible that AI develops "taste" such that it can sufficiently do this work, but I'm skeptical it happens in the near term.
In my experience, the vast majority of people can't even muster the hubris to think they can understand software at such a basic level, it doesn't matter if GenAI did all the heavy lifting sadly.
I have a hard time believing that a human driver would be as slow as this Waymo, or even slower. I drive my kid to school where it's posted 20mph and there are cameras (with plenty of warnings about the presence of said cameras) and witness a constant string of flashes from the camera nailing people for speeding through there.
Hardcoded limits are problematic because they completely lack context.
On that very same road with a 20mph limit, 40mph might be completely safe or 3mph might be extremely negligently dangerous. It all depends on what is going on in the area.
It's possible to separate out these tasks such that no single person or group has every needed piece of the puzzle.
The Carthusian monks who produce Chartreuse (a collection of herbal liqueurs popular for use in cocktails) have been producing it and protecting the secret 130 ingredient recipe for over 400 years successfully. At any given time no more than three of the monks hold the entire recipe, and yet they have a company they have formed to execute most of the production without the secret being leaked.
The designated monks coordinate production and are involved in QC, as well as developing new blends for special releases, but much production is done by paid employees who do not know the complete recipe.
I suspect though that a lot of the secret behind Chartreuse isn't just the recipe, but the actual sourcing of the ingredients.
Presumably the recipe relies on very unique and location-specific herbs to the alps. Part of the justification for limiting supply is concern for the environment and sustainability of their production. The order also had to cease production while they were evicted.
I wouldn't be surprised if some of the key ingredients weren't wild foraged or at least very unique species.
Couldn't it also be true that they see this as inevitable, but want to be the ones to steer us to it safely?
reply