Does it? How exactly is the common Joe going to benefit from this world where the robots are doing the job he was doing before, as well as everyone else's job (aka, no more jobs for anyone)? Where exactly is the money going to come from to make sure Joe can still buy food? Why on earth would the people in power (aka the psychotic CxOs) care to expend any resources for Joe, once they control the robots that can do everything Joe could? What mechanisms exist for everyone here to prosper, rather than a select few who already own more wealth and power than the majority of the planet combined?
I think believing in this post-scarcity utopian fairy tale is a lot less imaginative and grounded than the opposite scenario, one where the common man gets crushed ruthlessly.
We don't even have to step into any kind of fantasy world to see this is the path we're heading down, in our current timeline as we speak, CEOs are foaming at the mouth to replace as many people as they can with AI. This entire massive AI/LLM bubble we find ourselves in is predicated on the idea that companies can finally get rid of their biggest cost centers, their human workers and their pesky desires like breaks and vacations and worker's rights. And yet, there's still somehow people out there that will readily lap up the bullshit notion that this tech is going to somehow be used as a force of good? That I find completely baffling.
Many people seem to have this ideal that UBI is inevitable and will solve a bunch of these sort of problems.
But I don't see how UBI can avoid the same complexities as our tax systems, where it will be used to try to influence behaviors, growing cruft along the way just like taxes.
To me it's completely baffling how people imagine that with human labor largely going obsolete, we will just stick with capitalism and all workers go hungry in some dystopian fantasy.
Many cynics seem to believe rich people are demons with zero consideration for their fellow humans.
Rich and powerful persons are still people just like you, and they have an interest in keeping the general population happy. Not to mention that we have democratic mechanisms that give power to the masses.
We will obviously transition to a system where most of us can live a comfortable life without working a full time job, and it's going to be great.
> Many cynics seem to believe rich people are demons with zero consideration for their fellow humans.
Do they have considerations for their fellow humans? I certainly haven't observed that they give a shit about anyone or anything that isn't their bottom line. What exactly has Zuckerberg contributed to this world and to his fellow man, other than a mass data harvesting operation that has enabled real life genocides?
What has Bezos done for the average Amazon warehouse worker, other than stick them in grueling conditions where they even have their toilet breaks timed, just to squeeze out every single inch of life out of his workers he can? What have the people working for Big Oil done that is beneficial to humanity, other than suppressing climate change research and funding lobbying groups to hide the fact that they knew about climate change since the 70s? What have the tobacco execs done for humanity, other than bribing doctors to falsify medical research indicating that tobacco isn't harmful? I could go on and on about all the evils brought on to the world by psychotic executives and their sycophantic legions sucking the teet hoping for a handout, but we'd be here all day.
Sure, there's a few philanthropists out there bobbing around in the ocean of soulless psychopaths that are doing some good things, but they're very much the exception.
> Not to mention that we have democratic mechanisms that give power to the masses.
Even (especially?) just looking solely from a US POV, these democratic mechanisms are quickly and actively being eroded by these "considerate" billionaires like Thiel (who is quite openly & proudly naming his companies using literally evil things from Tolkien's works). They're talking about taking over Greenland to distract from them all being ousted as pedophiles for fuck's sake, what "democractic mechanisms"?
> We will obviously transition to a system where most of us can live a comfortable life without working a full time job, and it's going to be great.
I again don't see how this is "obvious", and you haven't outlined anything about how this utopia is supposed to work other than extremely vague statements. How is this utopian state more obvious than the one we are currently freefalling into, a dystopian police state where your every breath is being tracked in some database that is then shared with anyone with 3 pennies to pay to access the data?
Even in the utopia scenario, that experiment has been taken to its natural conclusion on rats back in the 70s and the results were...interesting, to say the least. (google "Universe 25"). I feel like in many ways, a devolution to feudalism and tribal warfare would be preferable.
I have a hard time believing that this v0, from 2023, achieved comparable results to Gemini 3 in Web design.
Gemini now often produces output that looks significantly better than what I could produce manually, and I'm an expert for web, although my expertise is more in tooling and package management.
Apple integrated ChatGPT as an opt-in that made the mainstream users feel like Apple was delivering on some of that marketing. Apple also delivered "high wow" features like auto-stickers and other such silliness. Just as the privacy issues are maybe a bit of an HN specialty, HN is also maybe a bit more prone to "Apple Intelligence" brand cynicism than mainstream belief.
I'm excited about the attempt at privacy because I'm on "Team Keep Siri Dumb". I like dumb Siri. It reliably meets most of my needs, setting timers and managing house lights. I'd rather Siri stay dumb and I would never opt-in to ChatGPT Siri as some of my family has, but if Siri "has to" get smart to survive, I will celebrate whatever privacy wins are still available as my only hope that smarter Siri is not something I need to just disable entirely (and lose my "friend" in charge of my timers and house lights in the process).
That is because your views appear to align with staunch progressives. From rejecting conservative politics ("fascism"), AI, advertising, and gambling.
From my side the only thing I would be hesitant about is gambling. The rest is arguably not objectively bad but more personal or political opinion from your side.
There seems to be some confusion. I wouldn't call conservative politics as a whole fascist, that's your choice of words. I doubt that "anti-AI progressive" is a thing too.
> The rest is arguably not objectively bad but more personal or political opinion from your side.
Nothing is objectively bad. Plenty of people argue that gambling should be legal if anything on the basis of personal freedom. All of this is a matter of personal choice.
(Incidentally, while you are putting people in buckets like that, note that one person very much can be similtaneously against gambling and drug legalization and be pro personal freedom open-source libertarian maximalist. Things are much more nuanced than “progressive” vs. “conservative”, whatever you put in those buckets is on you.)
It is just from my experience that political discussions online are very partisan. "fascism" in relation to the current US government combined with anti-AI sentiment is almost always a sure indicator for a certain bucket of politics.
> if you are a large business and you pay xxxxx-xxxxxx per year per developer, but are only willing to pay xxx per year in AI tooling, something's out of proportion.
Is way off base. Even if you replace multiple workers with one worker but better tool, businesses still won't want to pay the "multiple worker salary" to the single worker just because they use a more effective tool.
It would seem to me that tokens are only going to get more efficient and cheaper from here.
Demand is going to rise further as AI keeps improving.
Some argue there is a bubble, but with demand from the public for private use, business, education, military, cyber security, intelligence, it just seems like there will be no lack of investment.
No, I am pointing out the hypocrisy in demanding evidence of production results in a derisive manner whenever someone mentions a productivity boost with AI.
To some extend it's an understandable ask, but obviously even with a decent productivity boost side projects still require a lot of time and effort before a possible public release.
Windows 11 isn't running half as bad for me as most here seem to say.
I experience no delays with the start menu, and it's perfectly smooth on my 240 Hz monitor.
I also never encountered crashes like described as OP's reason for the switch.
So what do I have to gain from using Linux? A bit better compatibility for my software work, but much worse game compatibility. Fewer annoying popups, but they aren't that frequent on Windows either. Probably a worse update experience, and more time spent configuring.
I guess cynics will yap about capitalism and how this supposedly benefits only the rich. That seems very unimaginative to me.