A thought that popped into my head when I woke up at 4 am and couldn’t get back to sleep…
-
@larsmb @em_and_future_cats Well, as designed, they are -- I'm not sure that's a built-in limitation of LLMs or not. To be fair, I am not an expert on the tech.
As something of an aside...
It would be really interesting if you could pair the natural language instruction input with predictable output.
That is, for example -- if I could query, say, all the data in Wikipedia but get only accurate output. Or if you had something like Ansible with natural-language playbook creation.
"Hey, Ansible -- I want a playbook that will install all of the packages I have currently installed and retain my dotfiles" (or something) and be guaranteed accurate output... that would be amazing.
Except that I also worry about losing skills to do those things. I worry about the loss of incidental knowledge when researching if a computer can return *only* what you ask for and sacrifice accidental discovery.
(I also still think search engines were something of a mistake and miss Internet directories. Yeah, I'm fun at parties....)
-
@larsmb @em_and_future_cats Well, as designed, they are -- I'm not sure that's a built-in limitation of LLMs or not. To be fair, I am not an expert on the tech.
As something of an aside...
It would be really interesting if you could pair the natural language instruction input with predictable output.
That is, for example -- if I could query, say, all the data in Wikipedia but get only accurate output. Or if you had something like Ansible with natural-language playbook creation.
"Hey, Ansible -- I want a playbook that will install all of the packages I have currently installed and retain my dotfiles" (or something) and be guaranteed accurate output... that would be amazing.
Except that I also worry about losing skills to do those things. I worry about the loss of incidental knowledge when researching if a computer can return *only* what you ask for and sacrifice accidental discovery.
(I also still think search engines were something of a mistake and miss Internet directories. Yeah, I'm fun at parties....)
@jzb Is is an inherent limitation of how LLMs currently exist and are implemented.
They do strive to minimize it through scale, but it's also a reason why they do get "creative" in their answers.
Like with any stochastic algorithm, they perform best if you can (cheaply) validate the result. e.g., does a program pass the tests still?This is much harder for complex questions about the real world.
-
A thought that popped into my head when I woke up at 4 am and couldn’t get back to sleep…
Imagine that AI/LLM tools were being marketed to workers as a way to do the same work more quickly and work fewer hours without telling their employers.
“Use ChatGPT to write your TPS reports, go home at lunchtime. Spend more time with your kids!” “Use Claude to write your code, turn 60-hour weeks into four-day weekends!” “Collect two paychecks by using AI! You can hold two jobs without the boss knowing the difference!”
Imagine if AI/LLM tools were not shareholder catnip, but a grassroots movement of tooling that workers were sharing with each other to work less. Same quality of output, but instead of being pushed top-down, being adopted to empower people to work less and “cheat” employers.
Imagine if unions were arguing for the right of workers to use LLMs as labor saving devices, instead of trying to protect members from their damage.
CEOs would be screaming bloody murder. There’d be an overnight industry in AI-detection tools and immediate bans on AI in the workplace. Instead of Microsoft CoPilot 365, Satya would be out promoting Microsoft SlopGuard - add ons that detect LLM tools running on Windows and prevent AI scrapers from harvesting your company’s valuable content for training.
The media would be running horror stories about the terrible trend of workers getting the same pay for working less, and the awful quality of LLM output. Maybe they’d still call them “hallucinations,” but it’d be in the terrified tone of 80s anti-drug PSAs.
What I’m trying to say in my sleep-deprived state is that you shouldn’t ignore the intent and ill effects of these tools. If they were good for you, shareholders would hate them.
You should understand that they’re anti-worker and anti-human. TPTB would be fighting them tooth and nail if their benefits were reversed. It doesn’t matter how good they get, or how interesting they are: the ultimate purpose of the industry behind them is to create less demand for labor and aggregate more wealth in fewer hands.
Unless you happen to be in a very very small club of ultra-wealthy tech bros, they’re not for you, they’re against you. #AI #LLMs #claude #chatgpt
@jzb
Yeah, no. It's the same theme Marx recognized some 150 years ago:John Stuart Mill says in his “Principles of Political Economy":
“It is questionable if all the mechanical inventions yet made have lightened the day’s toil of any human being.”
That is, however, by no means the aim of the capitalistic application of machinery. Like every other increase in the productiveness of labour, machinery is intended to cheapen commodities, and, by shortening that portion of the working-day, in which the labourer works for himself, to lengthen the other portion that he gives, without an equivalent, to the capitalist. In short, it is a means for producing surplus-value.[Capital, IV.15]
-
@larsmb @em_and_future_cats Well, as designed, they are -- I'm not sure that's a built-in limitation of LLMs or not. To be fair, I am not an expert on the tech.
As something of an aside...
It would be really interesting if you could pair the natural language instruction input with predictable output.
That is, for example -- if I could query, say, all the data in Wikipedia but get only accurate output. Or if you had something like Ansible with natural-language playbook creation.
"Hey, Ansible -- I want a playbook that will install all of the packages I have currently installed and retain my dotfiles" (or something) and be guaranteed accurate output... that would be amazing.
Except that I also worry about losing skills to do those things. I worry about the loss of incidental knowledge when researching if a computer can return *only* what you ask for and sacrifice accidental discovery.
(I also still think search engines were something of a mistake and miss Internet directories. Yeah, I'm fun at parties....)
@jzb On the plus side, Ansible (because it's so freaking widespread and well documented, and it is mostly fairly easy to tell if the answer would do the thing one asked for) is a fairly successful area to apply GenAI to.
Combine with ansible-lint, shellcheck etc in the precommit hook, and the results are actually rather impressive. -
A thought that popped into my head when I woke up at 4 am and couldn’t get back to sleep…
Imagine that AI/LLM tools were being marketed to workers as a way to do the same work more quickly and work fewer hours without telling their employers.
“Use ChatGPT to write your TPS reports, go home at lunchtime. Spend more time with your kids!” “Use Claude to write your code, turn 60-hour weeks into four-day weekends!” “Collect two paychecks by using AI! You can hold two jobs without the boss knowing the difference!”
Imagine if AI/LLM tools were not shareholder catnip, but a grassroots movement of tooling that workers were sharing with each other to work less. Same quality of output, but instead of being pushed top-down, being adopted to empower people to work less and “cheat” employers.
Imagine if unions were arguing for the right of workers to use LLMs as labor saving devices, instead of trying to protect members from their damage.
CEOs would be screaming bloody murder. There’d be an overnight industry in AI-detection tools and immediate bans on AI in the workplace. Instead of Microsoft CoPilot 365, Satya would be out promoting Microsoft SlopGuard - add ons that detect LLM tools running on Windows and prevent AI scrapers from harvesting your company’s valuable content for training.
The media would be running horror stories about the terrible trend of workers getting the same pay for working less, and the awful quality of LLM output. Maybe they’d still call them “hallucinations,” but it’d be in the terrified tone of 80s anti-drug PSAs.
What I’m trying to say in my sleep-deprived state is that you shouldn’t ignore the intent and ill effects of these tools. If they were good for you, shareholders would hate them.
You should understand that they’re anti-worker and anti-human. TPTB would be fighting them tooth and nail if their benefits were reversed. It doesn’t matter how good they get, or how interesting they are: the ultimate purpose of the industry behind them is to create less demand for labor and aggregate more wealth in fewer hands.
Unless you happen to be in a very very small club of ultra-wealthy tech bros, they’re not for you, they’re against you. #AI #LLMs #claude #chatgpt
“Collect two paychecks by using AI! You can hold two jobs without the boss knowing the difference!”
This is already happening. So what’s the point?
Back to business: You are right. Every person who is "just doing the job" is endangered losing exactly this job, as AI will do it better and more efficiently. So the solution is to have a society of individuals who are smart enough to cope with it in an intelligent way. If not, the tech bros might win for a while, before all collapses.
-
A thought that popped into my head when I woke up at 4 am and couldn’t get back to sleep…
Imagine that AI/LLM tools were being marketed to workers as a way to do the same work more quickly and work fewer hours without telling their employers.
“Use ChatGPT to write your TPS reports, go home at lunchtime. Spend more time with your kids!” “Use Claude to write your code, turn 60-hour weeks into four-day weekends!” “Collect two paychecks by using AI! You can hold two jobs without the boss knowing the difference!”
Imagine if AI/LLM tools were not shareholder catnip, but a grassroots movement of tooling that workers were sharing with each other to work less. Same quality of output, but instead of being pushed top-down, being adopted to empower people to work less and “cheat” employers.
Imagine if unions were arguing for the right of workers to use LLMs as labor saving devices, instead of trying to protect members from their damage.
CEOs would be screaming bloody murder. There’d be an overnight industry in AI-detection tools and immediate bans on AI in the workplace. Instead of Microsoft CoPilot 365, Satya would be out promoting Microsoft SlopGuard - add ons that detect LLM tools running on Windows and prevent AI scrapers from harvesting your company’s valuable content for training.
The media would be running horror stories about the terrible trend of workers getting the same pay for working less, and the awful quality of LLM output. Maybe they’d still call them “hallucinations,” but it’d be in the terrified tone of 80s anti-drug PSAs.
What I’m trying to say in my sleep-deprived state is that you shouldn’t ignore the intent and ill effects of these tools. If they were good for you, shareholders would hate them.
You should understand that they’re anti-worker and anti-human. TPTB would be fighting them tooth and nail if their benefits were reversed. It doesn’t matter how good they get, or how interesting they are: the ultimate purpose of the industry behind them is to create less demand for labor and aggregate more wealth in fewer hands.
Unless you happen to be in a very very small club of ultra-wealthy tech bros, they’re not for you, they’re against you. #AI #LLMs #claude #chatgpt
-
A thought that popped into my head when I woke up at 4 am and couldn’t get back to sleep…
Imagine that AI/LLM tools were being marketed to workers as a way to do the same work more quickly and work fewer hours without telling their employers.
“Use ChatGPT to write your TPS reports, go home at lunchtime. Spend more time with your kids!” “Use Claude to write your code, turn 60-hour weeks into four-day weekends!” “Collect two paychecks by using AI! You can hold two jobs without the boss knowing the difference!”
Imagine if AI/LLM tools were not shareholder catnip, but a grassroots movement of tooling that workers were sharing with each other to work less. Same quality of output, but instead of being pushed top-down, being adopted to empower people to work less and “cheat” employers.
Imagine if unions were arguing for the right of workers to use LLMs as labor saving devices, instead of trying to protect members from their damage.
CEOs would be screaming bloody murder. There’d be an overnight industry in AI-detection tools and immediate bans on AI in the workplace. Instead of Microsoft CoPilot 365, Satya would be out promoting Microsoft SlopGuard - add ons that detect LLM tools running on Windows and prevent AI scrapers from harvesting your company’s valuable content for training.
The media would be running horror stories about the terrible trend of workers getting the same pay for working less, and the awful quality of LLM output. Maybe they’d still call them “hallucinations,” but it’d be in the terrified tone of 80s anti-drug PSAs.
What I’m trying to say in my sleep-deprived state is that you shouldn’t ignore the intent and ill effects of these tools. If they were good for you, shareholders would hate them.
You should understand that they’re anti-worker and anti-human. TPTB would be fighting them tooth and nail if their benefits were reversed. It doesn’t matter how good they get, or how interesting they are: the ultimate purpose of the industry behind them is to create less demand for labor and aggregate more wealth in fewer hands.
Unless you happen to be in a very very small club of ultra-wealthy tech bros, they’re not for you, they’re against you. #AI #LLMs #claude #chatgpt
@jzb “Imagine that AI/LLM tools were being marketed to workers as a way to do the same work more quickly and work fewer hours without telling their employers” — heh, most of non-nerd people who works remotely that I know already using LLMs for this exact purpose without any marketing
-
@bexelbie From my POV the answer to "why not both?" is that you can't really separate them right now.
Adoption of the commercial tools for whatever purpose does more to pave the way to the negative outcomes than any positive ones.
I think the "overemployed" thing is more of a statistical anomaly than a real thing.
Perhaps I'm just old and inflexible, though. Ideologically, I mean. I know I'm not very flexible physically these days...
My answer to "why not both" is that workers adopting AI to undercut employers doesn't resolve the underlying problem which is bullshit jobs.
I'd much rather work 20 productive hours in the week and create high quality work during that time instead of filing TPS reports for my corporate overlords.
-
A thought that popped into my head when I woke up at 4 am and couldn’t get back to sleep…
Imagine that AI/LLM tools were being marketed to workers as a way to do the same work more quickly and work fewer hours without telling their employers.
“Use ChatGPT to write your TPS reports, go home at lunchtime. Spend more time with your kids!” “Use Claude to write your code, turn 60-hour weeks into four-day weekends!” “Collect two paychecks by using AI! You can hold two jobs without the boss knowing the difference!”
Imagine if AI/LLM tools were not shareholder catnip, but a grassroots movement of tooling that workers were sharing with each other to work less. Same quality of output, but instead of being pushed top-down, being adopted to empower people to work less and “cheat” employers.
Imagine if unions were arguing for the right of workers to use LLMs as labor saving devices, instead of trying to protect members from their damage.
CEOs would be screaming bloody murder. There’d be an overnight industry in AI-detection tools and immediate bans on AI in the workplace. Instead of Microsoft CoPilot 365, Satya would be out promoting Microsoft SlopGuard - add ons that detect LLM tools running on Windows and prevent AI scrapers from harvesting your company’s valuable content for training.
The media would be running horror stories about the terrible trend of workers getting the same pay for working less, and the awful quality of LLM output. Maybe they’d still call them “hallucinations,” but it’d be in the terrified tone of 80s anti-drug PSAs.
What I’m trying to say in my sleep-deprived state is that you shouldn’t ignore the intent and ill effects of these tools. If they were good for you, shareholders would hate them.
You should understand that they’re anti-worker and anti-human. TPTB would be fighting them tooth and nail if their benefits were reversed. It doesn’t matter how good they get, or how interesting they are: the ultimate purpose of the industry behind them is to create less demand for labor and aggregate more wealth in fewer hands.
Unless you happen to be in a very very small club of ultra-wealthy tech bros, they’re not for you, they’re against you. #AI #LLMs #claude #chatgpt
@jzb yea. If any(!) LLM could do that in the least usage would be strictly limited and very expensive.
LLMs only ever perform usable in fields you're not an expert in. (That's why your average top brass thinks it's useful)
Right now they're trying and selling it as tool to cut out the employee. They claim, all the work's done and they don't have to pay a person... -
A thought that popped into my head when I woke up at 4 am and couldn’t get back to sleep…
Imagine that AI/LLM tools were being marketed to workers as a way to do the same work more quickly and work fewer hours without telling their employers.
“Use ChatGPT to write your TPS reports, go home at lunchtime. Spend more time with your kids!” “Use Claude to write your code, turn 60-hour weeks into four-day weekends!” “Collect two paychecks by using AI! You can hold two jobs without the boss knowing the difference!”
Imagine if AI/LLM tools were not shareholder catnip, but a grassroots movement of tooling that workers were sharing with each other to work less. Same quality of output, but instead of being pushed top-down, being adopted to empower people to work less and “cheat” employers.
Imagine if unions were arguing for the right of workers to use LLMs as labor saving devices, instead of trying to protect members from their damage.
CEOs would be screaming bloody murder. There’d be an overnight industry in AI-detection tools and immediate bans on AI in the workplace. Instead of Microsoft CoPilot 365, Satya would be out promoting Microsoft SlopGuard - add ons that detect LLM tools running on Windows and prevent AI scrapers from harvesting your company’s valuable content for training.
The media would be running horror stories about the terrible trend of workers getting the same pay for working less, and the awful quality of LLM output. Maybe they’d still call them “hallucinations,” but it’d be in the terrified tone of 80s anti-drug PSAs.
What I’m trying to say in my sleep-deprived state is that you shouldn’t ignore the intent and ill effects of these tools. If they were good for you, shareholders would hate them.
You should understand that they’re anti-worker and anti-human. TPTB would be fighting them tooth and nail if their benefits were reversed. It doesn’t matter how good they get, or how interesting they are: the ultimate purpose of the industry behind them is to create less demand for labor and aggregate more wealth in fewer hands.
Unless you happen to be in a very very small club of ultra-wealthy tech bros, they’re not for you, they’re against you. #AI #LLMs #claude #chatgpt
@jzb This would be happening if LLMs actually worked as advertised
-
@bexelbie From my POV the answer to "why not both?" is that you can't really separate them right now.
Adoption of the commercial tools for whatever purpose does more to pave the way to the negative outcomes than any positive ones.
I think the "overemployed" thing is more of a statistical anomaly than a real thing.
Perhaps I'm just old and inflexible, though. Ideologically, I mean. I know I'm not very flexible physically these days...
@jzb that’s fair. I think it’s impossible for any tool to not have both a worker freedom use and a worker subjugation use. It often depends on who gets there first and is correlated with privilege.
-
My answer to "why not both" is that workers adopting AI to undercut employers doesn't resolve the underlying problem which is bullshit jobs.
I'd much rather work 20 productive hours in the week and create high quality work during that time instead of filing TPS reports for my corporate overlords.
@lordbowlich @jzb everyone attacks TPS reports but, at least in my small sample size, the overwhelming majority of this isn’t “bullshit jobs.” It’s a symptom of regulations, information gathering, under resourcing, and, critically, domains you aren’t a master of. Many professions are filled with people whose conceit leads them to believe they understand the work of everyone else better than those people do themselves.
-
@lordbowlich @jzb everyone attacks TPS reports but, at least in my small sample size, the overwhelming majority of this isn’t “bullshit jobs.” It’s a symptom of regulations, information gathering, under resourcing, and, critically, domains you aren’t a master of. Many professions are filled with people whose conceit leads them to believe they understand the work of everyone else better than those people do themselves.
TPS reports is just an example.
No, bureaucracy is the bullshit. See James C. Scott's "Seeing Like a State." Doesn't matter if it's required to meet regulations or because of under resourcing. Push the decision making to lower tiers and trust the experts in those lower tiers to make the decisions. Get rid of hierarchical systems of control and you get rid of the bullshit jobs.
-
A thought that popped into my head when I woke up at 4 am and couldn’t get back to sleep…
Imagine that AI/LLM tools were being marketed to workers as a way to do the same work more quickly and work fewer hours without telling their employers.
“Use ChatGPT to write your TPS reports, go home at lunchtime. Spend more time with your kids!” “Use Claude to write your code, turn 60-hour weeks into four-day weekends!” “Collect two paychecks by using AI! You can hold two jobs without the boss knowing the difference!”
Imagine if AI/LLM tools were not shareholder catnip, but a grassroots movement of tooling that workers were sharing with each other to work less. Same quality of output, but instead of being pushed top-down, being adopted to empower people to work less and “cheat” employers.
Imagine if unions were arguing for the right of workers to use LLMs as labor saving devices, instead of trying to protect members from their damage.
CEOs would be screaming bloody murder. There’d be an overnight industry in AI-detection tools and immediate bans on AI in the workplace. Instead of Microsoft CoPilot 365, Satya would be out promoting Microsoft SlopGuard - add ons that detect LLM tools running on Windows and prevent AI scrapers from harvesting your company’s valuable content for training.
The media would be running horror stories about the terrible trend of workers getting the same pay for working less, and the awful quality of LLM output. Maybe they’d still call them “hallucinations,” but it’d be in the terrified tone of 80s anti-drug PSAs.
What I’m trying to say in my sleep-deprived state is that you shouldn’t ignore the intent and ill effects of these tools. If they were good for you, shareholders would hate them.
You should understand that they’re anti-worker and anti-human. TPTB would be fighting them tooth and nail if their benefits were reversed. It doesn’t matter how good they get, or how interesting they are: the ultimate purpose of the industry behind them is to create less demand for labor and aggregate more wealth in fewer hands.
Unless you happen to be in a very very small club of ultra-wealthy tech bros, they’re not for you, they’re against you. #AI #LLMs #claude #chatgpt
@jzb why do you think 3d printing lost its investing luster? You can own a 3d printer. You can only rent an LLM.
-
A thought that popped into my head when I woke up at 4 am and couldn’t get back to sleep…
Imagine that AI/LLM tools were being marketed to workers as a way to do the same work more quickly and work fewer hours without telling their employers.
“Use ChatGPT to write your TPS reports, go home at lunchtime. Spend more time with your kids!” “Use Claude to write your code, turn 60-hour weeks into four-day weekends!” “Collect two paychecks by using AI! You can hold two jobs without the boss knowing the difference!”
Imagine if AI/LLM tools were not shareholder catnip, but a grassroots movement of tooling that workers were sharing with each other to work less. Same quality of output, but instead of being pushed top-down, being adopted to empower people to work less and “cheat” employers.
Imagine if unions were arguing for the right of workers to use LLMs as labor saving devices, instead of trying to protect members from their damage.
CEOs would be screaming bloody murder. There’d be an overnight industry in AI-detection tools and immediate bans on AI in the workplace. Instead of Microsoft CoPilot 365, Satya would be out promoting Microsoft SlopGuard - add ons that detect LLM tools running on Windows and prevent AI scrapers from harvesting your company’s valuable content for training.
The media would be running horror stories about the terrible trend of workers getting the same pay for working less, and the awful quality of LLM output. Maybe they’d still call them “hallucinations,” but it’d be in the terrified tone of 80s anti-drug PSAs.
What I’m trying to say in my sleep-deprived state is that you shouldn’t ignore the intent and ill effects of these tools. If they were good for you, shareholders would hate them.
You should understand that they’re anti-worker and anti-human. TPTB would be fighting them tooth and nail if their benefits were reversed. It doesn’t matter how good they get, or how interesting they are: the ultimate purpose of the industry behind them is to create less demand for labor and aggregate more wealth in fewer hands.
Unless you happen to be in a very very small club of ultra-wealthy tech bros, they’re not for you, they’re against you. #AI #LLMs #claude #chatgpt
The media would be running horror stories about the terrible trend of workers getting the same pay for working less, and the awful quality of LLM output. Maybe they’d still call them “hallucinations,” but it’d be in the terrified tone of 80s anti-drug PSAs.
I feel like we actually did briefly see this early on when basically the first actual real-world use-case was students automating bullshit papers.
(Certainly, they reached for plagiarism, the correct word, but leveled at the students and not at all at the service provider.)
-
A thought that popped into my head when I woke up at 4 am and couldn’t get back to sleep…
Imagine that AI/LLM tools were being marketed to workers as a way to do the same work more quickly and work fewer hours without telling their employers.
“Use ChatGPT to write your TPS reports, go home at lunchtime. Spend more time with your kids!” “Use Claude to write your code, turn 60-hour weeks into four-day weekends!” “Collect two paychecks by using AI! You can hold two jobs without the boss knowing the difference!”
Imagine if AI/LLM tools were not shareholder catnip, but a grassroots movement of tooling that workers were sharing with each other to work less. Same quality of output, but instead of being pushed top-down, being adopted to empower people to work less and “cheat” employers.
Imagine if unions were arguing for the right of workers to use LLMs as labor saving devices, instead of trying to protect members from their damage.
CEOs would be screaming bloody murder. There’d be an overnight industry in AI-detection tools and immediate bans on AI in the workplace. Instead of Microsoft CoPilot 365, Satya would be out promoting Microsoft SlopGuard - add ons that detect LLM tools running on Windows and prevent AI scrapers from harvesting your company’s valuable content for training.
The media would be running horror stories about the terrible trend of workers getting the same pay for working less, and the awful quality of LLM output. Maybe they’d still call them “hallucinations,” but it’d be in the terrified tone of 80s anti-drug PSAs.
What I’m trying to say in my sleep-deprived state is that you shouldn’t ignore the intent and ill effects of these tools. If they were good for you, shareholders would hate them.
You should understand that they’re anti-worker and anti-human. TPTB would be fighting them tooth and nail if their benefits were reversed. It doesn’t matter how good they get, or how interesting they are: the ultimate purpose of the industry behind them is to create less demand for labor and aggregate more wealth in fewer hands.
Unless you happen to be in a very very small club of ultra-wealthy tech bros, they’re not for you, they’re against you. #AI #LLMs #claude #chatgpt
@jzb Ayup. If all the “AI will replace humans” pushers were also coming up with plans for UBI at a decent level or some kind of post money Star Trek future…
Well, I’d still call them nuts because the tech is nowhere near good enough, but at least it would be a plan.
But you never hear anything about the human side of things and a few billion people are not just going away.
So far then, the idea seems to be the usual fuck you I’m ok of the looting class.
-
A thought that popped into my head when I woke up at 4 am and couldn’t get back to sleep…
Imagine that AI/LLM tools were being marketed to workers as a way to do the same work more quickly and work fewer hours without telling their employers.
“Use ChatGPT to write your TPS reports, go home at lunchtime. Spend more time with your kids!” “Use Claude to write your code, turn 60-hour weeks into four-day weekends!” “Collect two paychecks by using AI! You can hold two jobs without the boss knowing the difference!”
Imagine if AI/LLM tools were not shareholder catnip, but a grassroots movement of tooling that workers were sharing with each other to work less. Same quality of output, but instead of being pushed top-down, being adopted to empower people to work less and “cheat” employers.
Imagine if unions were arguing for the right of workers to use LLMs as labor saving devices, instead of trying to protect members from their damage.
CEOs would be screaming bloody murder. There’d be an overnight industry in AI-detection tools and immediate bans on AI in the workplace. Instead of Microsoft CoPilot 365, Satya would be out promoting Microsoft SlopGuard - add ons that detect LLM tools running on Windows and prevent AI scrapers from harvesting your company’s valuable content for training.
The media would be running horror stories about the terrible trend of workers getting the same pay for working less, and the awful quality of LLM output. Maybe they’d still call them “hallucinations,” but it’d be in the terrified tone of 80s anti-drug PSAs.
What I’m trying to say in my sleep-deprived state is that you shouldn’t ignore the intent and ill effects of these tools. If they were good for you, shareholders would hate them.
You should understand that they’re anti-worker and anti-human. TPTB would be fighting them tooth and nail if their benefits were reversed. It doesn’t matter how good they get, or how interesting they are: the ultimate purpose of the industry behind them is to create less demand for labor and aggregate more wealth in fewer hands.
Unless you happen to be in a very very small club of ultra-wealthy tech bros, they’re not for you, they’re against you. #AI #LLMs #claude #chatgpt
@jzb i think the problem is more that workers have much greater work ethics than generally acknowledged, and if a tool allow them to work faster, they'll do more work, not not reclaim more time.
but more than une explanation can be true at the same time.
-
The media would be running horror stories about the terrible trend of workers getting the same pay for working less, and the awful quality of LLM output. Maybe they’d still call them “hallucinations,” but it’d be in the terrified tone of 80s anti-drug PSAs.
I feel like we actually did briefly see this early on when basically the first actual real-world use-case was students automating bullshit papers.
(Certainly, they reached for plagiarism, the correct word, but leveled at the students and not at all at the service provider.)
@matt That's true, though I'm not sure I'd call using LLMs to do homework pro-worker, either. It's kind of a different tangent.
-
A thought that popped into my head when I woke up at 4 am and couldn’t get back to sleep…
Imagine that AI/LLM tools were being marketed to workers as a way to do the same work more quickly and work fewer hours without telling their employers.
“Use ChatGPT to write your TPS reports, go home at lunchtime. Spend more time with your kids!” “Use Claude to write your code, turn 60-hour weeks into four-day weekends!” “Collect two paychecks by using AI! You can hold two jobs without the boss knowing the difference!”
Imagine if AI/LLM tools were not shareholder catnip, but a grassroots movement of tooling that workers were sharing with each other to work less. Same quality of output, but instead of being pushed top-down, being adopted to empower people to work less and “cheat” employers.
Imagine if unions were arguing for the right of workers to use LLMs as labor saving devices, instead of trying to protect members from their damage.
CEOs would be screaming bloody murder. There’d be an overnight industry in AI-detection tools and immediate bans on AI in the workplace. Instead of Microsoft CoPilot 365, Satya would be out promoting Microsoft SlopGuard - add ons that detect LLM tools running on Windows and prevent AI scrapers from harvesting your company’s valuable content for training.
The media would be running horror stories about the terrible trend of workers getting the same pay for working less, and the awful quality of LLM output. Maybe they’d still call them “hallucinations,” but it’d be in the terrified tone of 80s anti-drug PSAs.
What I’m trying to say in my sleep-deprived state is that you shouldn’t ignore the intent and ill effects of these tools. If they were good for you, shareholders would hate them.
You should understand that they’re anti-worker and anti-human. TPTB would be fighting them tooth and nail if their benefits were reversed. It doesn’t matter how good they get, or how interesting they are: the ultimate purpose of the industry behind them is to create less demand for labor and aggregate more wealth in fewer hands.
Unless you happen to be in a very very small club of ultra-wealthy tech bros, they’re not for you, they’re against you. #AI #LLMs #claude #chatgpt
@jzb I've just asked ChatGPT to summarize your post.
It said: "If they were good for you, shareholders would hate them."
-
@jzb I've just asked ChatGPT to summarize your post.
It said: "If they were good for you, shareholders would hate them."
@MartinEscardo well played. I should’ve expected that, but in my defense… I was really tired.
