Rendered at 19:37:36 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
ethanplant 2 hours ago [-]
I’m genuinely confused as to why the speakers are baffled by the boos.
Everyone, and especially new grads constantly hear that AI is going to replace every job. And absolutely no one seems to be interested in answering the question of “okay, then what?”
Of course people are going to react negatively when they hear, “the machines are going to take your jobs from you. No, we don’t care how you’ll be able to pay your rent or put food on the table”.
mbgerring 2 hours ago [-]
The people who are faced with this question are so far removed from the idea that losing your job means not being able to eat or pay rent that it seems pointless to ask them.
Whenever I try to get serious answers to this question I get far-future projections about how much better people’s lives will be in the aggregate, at some point in the future, on the assumption that their baseless, faith-based projections about AI materialize.
They literally do not care if their own neighbors starve, or become homeless, or lose any ability to plan their own lives more than a few days in advance.
This is the predictable result of the deep inculcation of spreadsheet-based “utilitarianism,” frequently paired with heavy drug use and paranoia-inducing science fiction horror stories, that certain communities of Bay Area tech workers were exposed to (inducted into, groomed into, whatever word you want to use) in the last decade or so.
This toxic soup taught many people that individual lives literally do not matter when weighed against the importance of creating AGI. This set of beliefs already has a body count, and it will grow before this train crashes.
vitally3643 1 hours ago [-]
The "I got mine, fuck you" mindset is genuinely going to be the death of the USA. It's genuinely astonishing how many people are willing to burn everything including their own house to spite random strangers.
coolThingsFirst 56 minutes ago [-]
That's how envy looks like. I made it, so now let's remove the ladder for the others.
mbgerring 1 hours ago [-]
I don’t disagree, but the actual beliefs of the AGI cult are much worse, and much more dangerous, than “I got mine, fuck you”
Should also be noted that many people buying into this belief system have connections to Y Combinator.
ferguess_k 1 hours ago [-]
It's more like "I'm Holy and All, bow before me. Why don't you like me? I don't understand" type.
I mean at least Jesus gave free wine and bread.
cindyllm 31 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
jandrese 54 minutes ago [-]
Elon Musk is a great example of what happens when you lose grasp on reality. He's been spouting post-scarcity nonsense for some time now like humanity is anywhere close to achieving it. And worst of all, his grand plan is to build expensive sentient humanoid robot slaves to achieve it. The timeline to achieve it is really short, like 20 years.
It's like the ultimate end-game of capitalism. Once Elon has every single last dollar he has "won" and humanity can transition to a post-market economy. This is why you never let game theory guys anywhere near positions of actual power.
hsuduebc2 1 hours ago [-]
I'm becoming more and more convinced that this eventually leads to violence.
This kind of selfishness has historically fueled movements like Marxism across many countries. It feels like the Industrial Revolution repeating itself, except now the pressure extends across far more of the so called society classes as well.
> I’m genuinely confused as to why the speakers are baffled by the boos.
Absolutely, I just made a similar comment before I saw yours. In fact, I would argue that the headline is also arguably burying the lede on commencement speakers believing that their AI pep talk speeches will be well-received by students. The newsworthy item is 'Man Bites Dog', not 'Vet Treats Bitten Dog'.
havblue 1 hours ago [-]
When I was in high school, the guidance counselors never really talked about job headwinds. Those were things that would presumably happen to other kids. The recipient of a motivational speech has infinite potential.
It's the same logic with discussing AI. The audience is the cream of the crop and will adapt to the future and benefit from technology. It's those other kids who didn't get your advice that might have to change careers.
littlexsparkee 1 hours ago [-]
This is the harm of meritocracy - the idea is so pervasive that if you don't make it, you believe it to be a deficit in you. Then your lack of success is stigma and keeps you there.
Mezzie 43 minutes ago [-]
100%. This also creates a sense that people who aren't 'successful' aren't worth listening to.
It's actually fascinating to be in a place where my lack of material success is in no way my own fault, and to have that be agreed upon by most people. My existence makes people uncomfortable.
36 minutes ago [-]
mkw5053 1 hours ago [-]
Especially after the first 1-2 got booed, you'd think those that had them scheduled later would have done another pass on their draft...
Or better yet, reflected on their world view and the reception.
bryan0 1 hours ago [-]
> Schmidt offered a similar message to graduates: Their fear is rational, but they have the power to shape how AI develops.
This doesn't sound like being baffled by it. It sounds like they are trying to shake the students and say: "fine boo, but you need do something about it." You can't just wallow and complain about it. I mean you can but it's a path to failure.
GrinningFool 1 hours ago [-]
What chances do the vast majority of those graduates have to shape what's happening? That happens at exec level at the largest companies. Everyone else gets to produce or consume what they decide on.
jandrese 48 minutes ago [-]
The students are trying to shape the way AI develops, they're unhappy with the results they are getting which is why they are unhappy with you, Mr. CEO man. They want a world where entry level jobs that can transition into good white collar work still exist. Some place where they might be able to afford housing, insurance, kids, and so on. Preferably one where they don't start out life tens of thousands of dollars in the hole just to have a chance at a decent life.
harimau777 1 hours ago [-]
The problem is that average people have no power to do anything. The last year has clearly demonstrated that.
happytoexplain 42 minutes ago [-]
They are trying. But there's not a ton they can do. It's obviously disingenuous to point to all negativity and say "you're just wallowing/complaining". There's no reason to word it this way unless you are broadly annoyed by AI negativity.
weard_beard 1 hours ago [-]
CEOs: “Do something about it.”
Luigi Mangione: …
CEOs: “Not like that…
I’m not suggesting that it’s a good response. I’m suggesting that this interpretation of what CEOs are saying is wrong.
ch4s3 1 hours ago [-]
This is a deeply sick way of thinking. Mangione was and is a fool, a 3rd rate thinker. His manifesto is muddled, factually mistaken, and by his own words he understood the topic poorly. You only need a cursory knowledge of the late 60s and early 70s to know that political violence rarely achieves its aims and is much more likely to empower reactionaries. There's no quick fix for political change.
yoyohello13 60 minutes ago [-]
> political violence rarely achieves its aims and is much more likely to empower reactionaries.
Cursory knowledge of history also shows that, when it comes to violence, logic does not matter. People are scared for their livelihoods. If the rich and powerful keep shouting to the word that they are going to destroy your way of life, there will be violence. It doesn't matter how futile or counterproductive it is.
joe_mamba 31 minutes ago [-]
>If the rich and powerful keep shouting to the word that they are going to destroy your way of life, there will be violence.
That's why there's well paid police and military, to protect the elites from you. Any kind of public violence you imagine will happen, will not touch the elites, it will be the working class people and small businesses being affected by street violence again, kind of like during BLM.
When you'll wake up one morning in your city and realize people on the streets are "fighting the elites and AI job replacement" it'll be your car and shop on fire and being looted, not the property of Bezos or Zuckerberg, and 911 will not come to save you because they barricaded to save themselves, just like in the 1993 LA riots. So be careful with wishing for this mythical street violence uprising. Life isn't a Marvel movie.
If public violence solved things all the time so easily, then dictators of Iran, USSR/Russia, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, etc would have simply been ousted by their people through violence, but yet they never were because the law enforcement and military forces protecting them were stronger than the people willing to riot and put their lives in danger.
yoyohello13 11 minutes ago [-]
I'm quite aware the elites will never be meaningfully impacted. That doesn't change the reality that it's going to happen. I personally am quite afraid of the future, I know deep down me and my family are in for a bad time in the years to come, and nowhere in the world will be safe, other than the bunkers in Greenland of course.
joe_mamba 7 minutes ago [-]
>That doesn't change the reality that it's going to happen.
That's why the elites have secret doomsday bunkers on private islands.
And the mid-upper class are trying to cash in as much as they can now while the going is still good so they can also move their families abroad or to gated communities in safer places of the country to be as far away from the potential riot hotspots as possible.
slg 1 hours ago [-]
>political violence rarely achieves its aims
This country was founded on political violence. When the political violence works, we tend to stop considering it political violence.
ch4s3 10 minutes ago [-]
I did say rarely, and if you are looking more carefully a pluralistic democracy wasn't really what a lot of the founders were after, especially guys like Jefferson. Sure we're happy we got it, but it wasn't necessarily the aim and we got SUPER LUCKY that Washington decided to step down and retire. The former military leaders of revolutions almost never do that.
pesus 59 minutes ago [-]
> You only need a cursory knowledge of the late 60s and early 70s to know that political violence rarely achieves its aims
Maybe cursory knowledge isn't enough, actually. The Civil Rights Act was ultimately only passed because of political violence. As another commenter said, the literal founding of the country was based on political violence.
ch4s3 9 minutes ago [-]
> Maybe cursory knowledge isn't enough, actually. The Civil Rights Act was ultimately only passed because of political violence.
Violence by the police against peaceful protestors is what turned public opinion. Violence by political activists did not lead to the Civil Rights Act. You have it backwards.
happytoexplain 41 minutes ago [-]
It is sick! It's truly sick.
Thing about the fact that it is sick, and it is what people are saying.
We are sick right now.
yoyohello13 2 minutes ago [-]
Humans have been killing each other since before recorded history. There is no use pretending it's some exceptional 'sickness'. Rather than dismissing the sentiment as the product of a sick mind, it's more productive to accept it's part of us and try to understand the underlying causes.
52 minutes ago [-]
leptons 59 minutes ago [-]
Mangione was a one-off, and a lot of people understand why he may have done what he did. Just wait until the American version of the French Revolution happens. If AI keeps stealing all the jobs, it will come sooner rather than later.
ch4s3 7 minutes ago [-]
> and a lot of people understand why he may have done what he did.
He didn't understand why he did what he did.
> just wait until the American version of the French Revolution happens
We should all be trying to actively prevent that. The French Revolution was a complete failure and mostly succeeded in killing poor people and launching Napoleon's wars.
quickthrowman 34 minutes ago [-]
Revolutions usually are bad. The Who puts it succinctly in Won’t Get Fooled Again
“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss”
Best case scenario is a new set of elites that end up doing the same shit as the last group, see Russia from 1918 to the present for an example.
happytoexplain 18 minutes ago [-]
Yes, they are usually bad.
That's not really a compelling argument against them, considering why they happen. It's like saying "war is bad". I mean, yes.
leptons 24 minutes ago [-]
The Who is your evidence? Lol. The French Revolition turned out pretty well for the French people. It needed to happen. And centuries later, the French still don't accept bullshit, they will protest and riot when their protections are diminished in any way. America does protesy and riot too, though not to the same extent, but that will only get worse as things get bad.
Russia is not a good example either, their society has always been a clusterfuck, and probably always will be as long as there are people willing to throw other people put of windows so someone can stay ahead or in power.
ch4s3 3 minutes ago [-]
> The French Revolition turned out pretty well for the French people.
What? Napoleon marched them off to war "spending 30,000 lives per month". They didn't get a proper Republic until 1870 and turned into miserable colonial overlords. Moreover the 3rd Republic;s foreign policy helped cause WWI.
pesus 1 hours ago [-]
People will downvote you because the idea of violence shocks and scares them, but if you steal people's future and strip them of any real (peaceful) options to change things, it becomes inevitable some of them will try to fight back with what few options they do have left.
dfxm12 52 minutes ago [-]
The status quo of health insurance in the US ("delay, deny, defend") is structural violence. This isn't about fear of violence, they just have different politics...
happytoexplain 38 minutes ago [-]
Loss of livelihood is in the same category of structural violence as loss of healthcare.
yoyohello13 1 hours ago [-]
Downvoted... but not wrong. People who think we can automate 50% of jobs without subsequent violence are fooling themselves.
jandrese 51 minutes ago [-]
It's not hard to see why someone like him might not want to understand the unpopularity of a technology that they have bet their company on. A man can believe almost anything if his paycheck depends on it.
Also, from his perspective these kids are just fools who spent tens of thousands of dollars studying buggy whip manufacturing just as the automobile was invented.
water-data-dude 1 hours ago [-]
Why aren't grads more pumped about an exciting career as an organ donor?
saltcured 38 minutes ago [-]
My donation broker says getting pumped may decrease the street value of my organs
seanhunter 1 hours ago [-]
Also why on earth did they think this was a good topic for a commencement speech? A commencement speech is about “congratulations on your achievement - the world is now your oyster. The education you have worked hard for really matters and with a bit of grit and determination, you can go out and forge a better future than old geezers like me can ever imagine.”
They can see peers cheating the system using AI to get ahead, future job prospects, directly affecting time to pay off student loans are being crushed by the AI narrative which is a reminder of how the tuition money is never coming back
and then to have someone come in on commencement day and sing praises of AI just totally shows how tone deaf, blind, and off track the college system really is
related [1] Glendale Community College's screws up names as students walk up to the stage on graduation day. Blamed on AI
The problem here is more capitalism than AI. If AI ends up being truly as beneficial as all the enthusiasts are predicting, that value could go to making all our lives better, but we have created an economic and political system that ensures it won’t. That extra value will be captured by stockholders of the AI companies and go mostly to people who are already rich. So why should anyone who isn’t already invested in AI be optimistic about things? Even the ideal use case doesn’t benefit them.
dfxm12 2 hours ago [-]
The executive class is out of touch with normal society.
onetokeoverthe 2 hours ago [-]
[dead]
fundad 1 hours ago [-]
It seems to me they are doing this for sympathy. They know how people feel about AI and big tech and do these speeches to repair their reputations, part of that is showing how mean and unfair the youths are to them.
nephihaha 2 hours ago [-]
They're baffled maybe because they stand to benefit, whereas most of the audience won't.
austin-cheney 1 hours ago [-]
> I’m genuinely confused as to why the speakers are baffled by the boos.
Sales. When you are a sociopath everything is a sales pitch with no introspection. The only inflection point is to guess at when to modify the sales pitch for the next audience.
sidewndr46 1 hours ago [-]
One thing I've observed in general that certain peoples jobs are to be out of touch. If they were fully in touch with societal opinions they'd probably self censor. By being out of touch they do things that others would consider taboo and create business opportunities for the company.
littlexsparkee 1 hours ago [-]
the economic system rewards depravity - the more constraints you self-impose, the fewer opportunities for profit
sidewndr46 1 hours ago [-]
I'm not entirely sure there are rewards for depravity, but your second point is certainly true. The more willing you are to work within the bounds of "legal, but probably reprehensible" the more business opportunities you have.
JohnFen 55 minutes ago [-]
That working within the bounds of "legal but reprehensible" gives increased opportunities is a great example of how our system rewards depravity.
littlexsparkee 57 minutes ago [-]
if we take the definition of depravity as moral corruption, i stand by the word choice - much damage (social, ecological) has been countenanced as the 'cost of doing business'. you can argue amoral or immoral but my bet is that most know these transgressions are wrong at heart.
neksn 1 hours ago [-]
> And absolutely no one seems to be interested in answering the question of “okay, then what?”
I don’t see why the people being booed should be responsible for answering this question. How many such questions did the inventor of the tractor have to answer?
vitally3643 56 minutes ago [-]
The tractor displaced horse and oxen.
Which were slaughtered when no longer needed.
You should rethink your metaphor because it's not having the effect you intended.
wat10000 54 minutes ago [-]
Imagine if the inventor of the tractor went to a college for farm workers (if there were such a thing) and gave a commencement speech that was all, "Tractors are going to revolutionize farming by making your jobs obsolete." I think it would be fair to expect some answers about how the new graduates should handle that. Or maybe Mr. Tractor should just stay home if he doesn't have the answers or doesn't want to face the crowd.
This isn't "people are upset with AI and demanding answers from the people creating it." This is, "the creators are showing up at schools and giving speeches about how everyone is fucked, and this is getting a bad reaction for some unfathomable reason."
harimau777 1 hours ago [-]
They caused the problems, so they are responsible.
Rantenki 1 hours ago [-]
It would absolutely have been valid to ask that question of the inventor of the tractor too.
It's even more relevant to ask of the CEO/CTO/COO/etc. of the companies that are selling hard on eliminating humans from as many workflows as possible.
neksn 1 hours ago [-]
They are selling a reduction in labour costs which has been the primary selling point of automation since humans began automating things.
amanaplanacanal 44 minutes ago [-]
Yep. They are talking to other CEOs, not to the young graduates they are supposed to be talking to.
dsign 1 hours ago [-]
> And absolutely no one seems to be interested in answering the question of “okay, then what?”
I don't think those speakers have anything kind, useful and meaningful to say, otherwise, smart people that they are, they would say it. Which leaves truthful, heartfelt answers but a bad fit for the occasion. Imagine yourself standing on that podium and saying: "After centuries of hard work, capital is on the verge of getting rid of labor. I'm well-paid to be joyous about that, although I don't know for how much longer....". Here's another: "As you know, one day people will have to stand united and make a revolution against the Machines. But it won't be this decade, nor the next, and between now and then the systems of learning that made humans great are going to suffer terribly while AI will get better by the day. If there's going to be hope, and until that day of the Grim Revolt comes, it falls to you to raise a new generation and do their home-schooling away from the Machines...Go now, throw that diploma in the thrash, get yourself a remote wood cabin in Kentucky and get some kids..."
evil-olive 1 hours ago [-]
> “I know what many of you are feeling about that. I can hear you,” Schmidt responded as the boos continued. “There is a fear in your generation that the future has already been written, that the machines are coming, that the jobs are evaporating … and I understand that fear.”
71 year old man with a net worth of $64 billion [0] tells a bunch of 20-somethings (many of whom have tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt that they will need to start repaying soon) that he understands how they feel.
yeah, I can't imagine why he got a hostile response from the crowd...
I know a lot of people are going to focus on the employment issue for new graduates, but there's another dimension to consider: this group of students is going to be the first group who have gone through all of college with the enhanced cheating power of LLMs. The majority of people graduating will either have used LLMs to cheat on some classes, or at least known someone who did so. Which incidentally also means that they have a much better idea than the speakers do about how good these AI tools at the variety of tasks someone in an entry-level role might be expected to do. It is also worth noting that Gen Z in general is the most skeptical of the generations of the utility of AI.
DonsDiscountGas 1 hours ago [-]
> “His speech was incredibly disrespectful to students,” said Malone. “We as students are discouraged from using it and penalized for using it. And then to have our speaker be the champion of AI is just like, OK? Why?”
It's a perfectly fair question and the answer is that being a practitioner is different from being a student. If you want to hear some nice music you can learn to play and then record yourself, or you can buy/rent/freely acquire an existing recording. Both valid options, one is obviously a lot faster. If you want to be able to play music yourself, you have to do it yourself. Learning can't be outsourced.
Somebody really should be explaining that to students.
FloorEgg 42 minutes ago [-]
Knowledge can be transferred but understanding has to be earned from experience (doing something and getting some sort of feedback).
LLMs are commoditizing knowledge, qnd the result will be a relative increase in the value of human understanding and skills.
Some people may be baffled by the boos because they are so wealthy they lost touch with what it feels like to struggle to create and capture enough value to afford a dignified life. Some people are frustrated by the boos because it represents the failure of the education system to prepare students to thrive in an environment where thriving is very possible if you have the right attitude and skills.
Personally, I'm frustrated because many of these students are being sabotaged by the media they consume, and the education system is not equiped to deal with the deep pessimism or prepare students for the new ways to create and capture value.
cindyllm 59 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
glitchc 53 minutes ago [-]
But they are learning to practice, at least in some of the courses (others are focused on much-needed theory).
It's like forcing students to write code by hand because using an editor would give away too much. And I know first-hand that CS education used to do precisely this as I have proctored such exams myself. What needs a rethink is how education, especially CS education, is imparted given the existence of these tools.
FloorEgg 40 minutes ago [-]
> What needs a rethink is how education, especially CS education, is imparted given the existence of these tools.
This is true of most of the education system. It all needs a rethink.
monknomo 1 hours ago [-]
Commencements are about the students, and celebrating their hard work and achievements over several years.
A common thread in these commencements with booing is that the speaker is not centering the student. They're centering AI, and talking about AI's potential, which is, at best, orthogonal to the student's potential, and possibly actively detrimental. Small wonder
jdw64 1 hours ago [-]
>It felt like a big advertisement. It felt like the longest Gemini ad ever
If anything, this incident might just inspire Eric Schmidt to cut even more entry-level data processing jobs and deploy a few extra agents to automate them
dakiol 1 hours ago [-]
People are not idiots. AI benefits only the ones at the top of the chain, and the 10% of the rest of us. Are you in the top 10%? No, you typically are in the bottom 90%. So we don't want AI, we don't want the top getting richer at our expenses. We just want a job to bring bread home and keeping pushing our store while being "happy". You take that away from us, just so you can double your net worth, and well, bad things will start to happen
joe_mamba 1 hours ago [-]
>We just want a job to bring bread home.
Elites will go like "fine, we brought the Nike sneaker and iPhone factory jobs from China back in the US", and americans will go like "well, we don't want THOSE jobs".
>You take that away from us, just so you can double your net worth, and well, bad things will start to happen
What bad things will happen? Luigi shot that healthcare CEO. Is your healthcare now cheaper? Your president and elites ware exposed as part of a pedo network that ate babies and ran an eugenics program. What did you(people) do about that? Nothing, nothing happened. YOu went and complained on the internet for a while, till the next Sports-ball or big thing on the news happened, and then forgot about Epstein(google trends shows this)
Edit: Can anyone explain why the downvotes with arguments? You know what I said is true. Is it emotional response to not being able to do anything about it, so you take your frustration out on the messenger? How does that change anything? You're still wrong and the bad guys are still free, downvoting me doesn't fix this.
littlexsparkee 1 hours ago [-]
I wouldn't write it off so quickly, history is not finished. To capitulate so easily, you hand them their victory.
habinero 29 minutes ago [-]
Peddle your weird conspiracy think somewhere else, please.
joe_mamba 24 minutes ago [-]
Which of what I said was "a weird conspiracy"?
54 minutes ago [-]
Mordisquitos 2 hours ago [-]
What I found surprising of the couple of video examples I've seen was not the students' reactions; those were completely predictable. Rather, what most stood out to me was the absolute detachment displayed by the speakers in believing that the students would like to hear their dystopian AI maximalism, and their inability to read the room and understand the reaction from the audience.
topspin 7 minutes ago [-]
The instinctual reaction of Gloria Caufield when she got booed at UCF was to characterize the "issue" as "bipolar"; invoking mental health terminology. Schmidt called his AI future "democratization." Don't be antidemocratic, kids! Since then, the media narrative throughout the reporting has been about "anxiety" and "fear".
One might hope that folks can see the time-honored patterns here. This isn't new. It's just not frequently experienced by those that have earned degrees.
rybosworld 1 hours ago [-]
Executives of these tech companies keep saying the automation of intelligence will drive job creation because previous waves of automation did the same.
To anyone with a brain, that is obviously not true.
If AI continues to improve at the pace that it has been, why would anyone hire a human to do the thinking? Human intelligence will be orders of magnitude more expensive, and much slower...
The tech executives know this and they actually just do not care. The reason they are saying it will drive job creation is just to temporarily keep worker anxiety levels to a minimum.
To be clear, I am not claiming that all human work will be automated away soon. Just that a huge portion of it will be.
seanw444 1 hours ago [-]
> To be clear, I am not claiming that all human work will be automated away soon. Just that a huge portion of it will be.
You don't even need to be a believer in the technology to be concerned. All that matters is that the people with all the money perceive some positive outcome for their wallets from all this investment and AI hype. That is where they'll put their money. Whether or not it ends bad or good. The economy has been reshaped around a hope. Either the hope is false and the economy tanks, or the hope is realized and jobs disappear. Lose-lose.
bawolff 1 hours ago [-]
> If AI continues to improve at the pace that it has been, why would anyone hire a human to do the thinking?
Sure, but that is the big if, right? It seems unlikely to me that AI will continue at this rate indefinitely. Every technology eventually hits limits.
reducesuffering 33 minutes ago [-]
Exactly. If the AI owner class actually want anyone to believe that AI will bring jobs and prosperity, then people will want to see a little of that in action? You can't say "AI will bring even better jobs for you!" when all that's observed is 20% layoffs every single week.
throwaway27448 1 hours ago [-]
Who thought it was a good idea to involve AI into a commencement speech? Talk about showing contempt to the graduates!
joezydeco 1 hours ago [-]
There's a bit of hypocrisy going on as well. Are you sure 100% of those kids in the crowd never touched AI to help them with an assignment or fake their way through a homework?
The feeling I get right now is that we're happy to use the assist when necessary, but hate being told it will replace you completely.
happytoexplain 10 minutes ago [-]
"100%" is a meaningless bar.
>we're happy to use the assist when necessary, but hate being told it will replace you completely
There is absolutely no hypocrisy in this, and that's even before this adjustment to reality: Usage === happy to use.
analog31 1 hours ago [-]
Who thought it was a good idea to invite a billionaire?
itsafarqueue 1 hours ago [-]
Herein lies the seeds of the Revolution that is being fomented by the very class of educators, speakers, and generationally privileged who exhibit casual, naive contempt for the audience they drone on their tone-deaf sermons, utterly oblivious to the toxic duplicity of the messages they shove down throats of those who bear the worst of the costs externalised by those spreading “the good word”. They can all burn.
booleandilemma 2 hours ago [-]
There is nothing about AI that seems like it's going to have a net positive for humanity. Faster code? Sure. Better chatbots? Sure. Textual analysis? Sure. But the downside, and it's huge, is massive unemployment and societal collapse. Nothing AI brings to the table is worth having an unemployment rate of 25% (or more).
Our society is simply not ready for this. We need to rework things from the ground up, not proceed blindly (which is what we're currently doing), if we want to successfully integrate AI into our lives without massive pain.
jstanley 1 hours ago [-]
We've done this dozens of times before. In the short term some people suffer and that is bad for them. In the long term everyone is much better off due to increased productivity.
rybosworld 1 hours ago [-]
> We've done this dozens of times before.
No, we really haven't. Every previous wave of automation has targeted human labor.
The thing that makes human's unique in the animal kingdom is our intelligence. From an economic stand point, that's the thing that makes people valuable.
When that's automated, what is there left? Onlyfans?
monknomo 1 hours ago [-]
hardly, onlyfans is going to have loads of competitions from ai waifus
pesus 1 hours ago [-]
I'd love for everyone justifying and hand waving the suffering of others to quit their jobs, give up their assets, and join in on the suffering. If it's really worth it for the "increased productivity", they should have no problem doing so. After all, they'll be much better off in the end, right?
yoyohello13 1 hours ago [-]
What’s really baffling is the people in charge seem to just expect the suffering people to sit down and take it. That’s probably why they are pushing so hard for the surveillance state.
harimau777 1 hours ago [-]
Ya, fuck those people suffering in the short term! I got mine!
dmbche 1 hours ago [-]
When is the productivity showing up?
jstanley 1 hours ago [-]
If productivity doesn't increase then you don't need to worry about displaced workers.
happytoexplain 1 hours ago [-]
Business leaders are not perfectly rational beings.
throwaway27448 1 hours ago [-]
And if productivity does increase, how are we supposed to force the recipients of this productivity to care about the rest of us? It's not like investment has panned out with its promises of general return in any of our lifetimes
dakiol 1 hours ago [-]
Who cares about productivity? Your CEO. Not you, not me. We all cannot be CEOs.
pesus 1 hours ago [-]
Related: productivity has greatly increased over the last ~75 years, but wages have not increased anywhere near the same amount[0]. There is no reason for anyone besides CEOs (or similar positions) to care about productivity.
Only if you view productivity as likely to distribute results to society. This has been proven false again and again over the last fifty years, and the k-shaped economic trend seems to be accelerating.
toasty228 1 hours ago [-]
> In the long term everyone is much better off due to increased productivity.
reply
Do people still believe in these fairy tales lmao? Most of the productivity gains don't go to the workers, pretty much everywhere in the developed world working hours and retirement age are going up, housing affordability is going down. You're not "much better off"
Politicians were selling us the 3 days workweek like 40+ years ago, while shilling for more automated factories, it never happened, it didn't happen with computers, it won't happen with AI
jstanley 1 hours ago [-]
Then I assume given the choice you would go back to the middle ages?
happytoexplain 1 hours ago [-]
Exaggerated assumptions of this magnitude are a red flag against the honesty of the position from which you are arguing.
toasty228 1 hours ago [-]
As if these were the only choices: submit to your AI overlords or become a peasant. What a lack of imagination...
seanw444 50 minutes ago [-]
There's a lot to appreciate about the middle ages. It wasn't all bad.
littlexsparkee 1 hours ago [-]
everyone? this is pure conjecture and cold comfort for anyone early/mid career
hello_moto 1 hours ago [-]
short-term?
how about 100 years?
> Beginning in Great Britain around 1760, the Industrial Revolution had spread to continental Europe and the United States by about 1840
You know what else happened during that 100-200 years time frame? 2 Wars + Governments decided to step in and rebuild post-war. Governments tax the rich/elite by 90%.
You know what else happened? workers being punished physically and mentally until the formation of Unions.
You skipped a big chunk of The Ruling Class always exploit everybody else like what we're seeing right now: Tech CEOs laying off and not hiring.
History repeats again.
Are our productivity increase for the better? People are still working overtime because of reduced worker's protection today.
amanaplanacanal 33 minutes ago [-]
We have a lot more cheap plastic toys now though!
leptons 46 minutes ago [-]
The last time something like this happened, we got the great depression. Do you want another great depression? The next one will likely be far worse than the last one.
JohnFen 48 minutes ago [-]
Historically, this is not always true. It's a gamble. Right now, a small group of ultra-wealthy tech guys who have a clear disdain for everyone else is trying to gamble the future of us all.
That's infuriating right there.
Also,
> In the short term some people suffer and that is bad for them.
The casual way that the well-being and survival of people in the here-and-now is disregarded doubles how infuriating this all is.
happytoexplain 1 hours ago [-]
Every time, the people suffering are correct to revolt, and the people trying to repress them are incorrect to repress them, from the perspective of human beings.
Every time, the "increased productivity" is inevitable, but that is not the same as better off. None of these changes has been 100% positive, even in the long run, and this one is shaping up to be the most disappointing of them all in that dimension.
Inevitable != purely good.
You can be pragmatic and give a shit about humans at the same time. It's not a puzzle.
bawolff 1 hours ago [-]
> None of these changes has been 100% positive, even in the long run,
Personally i do in fact think we are better off (in the long term) because of e.g. the industrial revolution.
Short term, it was horrific, but i'd still rather live now than as a peasent in the mid-1700s.
I'd be intersted in hearing a counter argument from anyone who disagrees, as its hard for me to imagine.
happytoexplain 1 hours ago [-]
I said 100%. Not on average. Billions of humans are more complicated than that. We can be elevated in some ways while being degraded in others.
I.e. progress is not free, and some costs last forever, they are not only up-front. Ignoring the costs is deadly.
bawolff 1 hours ago [-]
This view seems morally rephrensible. Basically everything you just said could be used to justify slavery or any atrocity you want.
happytoexplain 52 minutes ago [-]
Anything can be used to endorse anything if you twist the underlying implications enough. Good news: I promise I don't endorse those things.
I don't think you're coming at this from a place of thoughtfulness (it's a tough, broad topic).
Saying that people are correct to resist does not imply the endorsement of any actions, it just means that people are correct to resist against things that harm their lives and their children's lives, even if it theoretically makes life easier for their grandchildren (which isn't even clearly true in this case, making my point even more valid).
I.e. it's OK for humans to behave in the interest of their own. This can be a really tough point with complicated implications, but it's fundamentally unassailable.
brcmthrowaway 2 hours ago [-]
College students are cooked for entry level work.
I'm guessing there will soon be a government mandate requiring some percentage of NCGs to be hired, similar to India and other countries with huge cohorts.
delecti 2 hours ago [-]
Yep. I was looking for jobs the other day (because the market as a whole is kinda cooked), and one fairly small company had a half-dozen openings for Staff level engineers, and nothing else. If I'm having this much trouble with staff level experience, I can't imagine how new grads are doing.
sheikhnbake 2 hours ago [-]
Not great. There's so much competition for so few entry-level positions.
Joel_Mckay 1 hours ago [-]
Check your schools alumni jobs board postings, and have a look at local telecom offerings. Few will want to spend $50k in resources to train knowing you will jump to a better job in 1 year.
These people have been around a long time, and may be able to get you started:
Would also recommend talking with companies you find interesting at local trade-shows. Don't get lazy with the online gauntlet of Ads for awful jobs, scams, and AI datasets.
Best of luck, =3
mkw5053 1 hours ago [-]
I believe Anthropic has stopped hiring junior and mid eng. So if they're an indication of what's the come (or is already here)
Joel_Mckay 1 hours ago [-]
They are a business, and not an outreach program.
Note NVIDIA is engaged in questionable operations that must end... sooner or later.
Unfortunately, the economic fallout will impact kids hardest. =3
amanaplanacanal 31 minutes ago [-]
Billionaires greasing the tracks to the Butlerian Jihad.
everyone 1 hours ago [-]
In theory more automation = less drudge work for humans, so its great. But in practice, in corrupt societies, elites reap all the benefits while the lower classes eat all the downsides.
The thing is though, this is not a tech problem, it's a society problem. Elites will use literally any technology from any era to do the same thing. It's been the case for 1000's of years, even Romans had factories and slave powered mega-farms for example.
Lots of countries are extremely corrupt, they have systems that allow power to concentrate over time (political/ military/ financial, it doesnt matter, it ends up the same either way. Eg. With enough financial power you also gain all the political power and vice versa). That's the root issue people should be trying to fix imo.
And how to fix? I dunno, something drastic, we probably need something like the French revolutions.
kspetkov79 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
garciasn 2 hours ago [-]
There are a lot of differences in what is allowed in a post-secondary education setting that are the diametric opposite in the working world.
You are in an education setting to learn HOW things work and how to think critically. In the workplace, you are doing work w/whatever tools you have at your disposal to get it done fast and well.
You aren't supposed to use a search engine or a reference manual to find the answers to a problem on a test, but how many of us relied on those for our day-to-day work?
While I understand what you're trying to say here, they're just not comparable scenarios.
everdrive 2 hours ago [-]
I think you're agreeing with the parent comment more than you think; the skills needed to excel at school are in a lot of cases quite oblique to the skills needed to excel in the working world. At least when I was young, no one was able to articulate to me just how little of the rigamarole at school would be totally unnecessary in the working world, and the transition was quite a surprise for me.
A few high-level differences:
- There has never been a time in my entire working career -- ever, where I could not reference something or look it up. What matters is that I know the concepts; I'm _always_ allowed (in fact, encouraged) to double check and reference my facts.
- If I dislike a topic in front of me, I can expend effort and do something else. For instance, one my first "real" jobs was working in the Apple store. You could either do repairs or take in broken computers. One role was critical thinking, the other was customer service. If you were an excellent tech, they would make you do the customer service bit far less often. But you can't get out of writing English essays in school by excelling in mathematics.
- In school you receive instruction for a long period of time and then are asked to recall and analyze what you've learned. But, there is no real recursive mechanism for learning your craft; if you need to take apart a macbook 5-10 times a day, you'll develop real expertise. And there will really be no penalty to being initially poor at the task. Nothing in school really works this way; you never approach any topic in depth, and you don't get real practice -- you just get a test which is a distance enough behavioral reward mechanism that it cannot really reinforce the neural pathways.
I understand that this is a bit oblique to LLMs, but I think LLMS map the same way. Do I need to know how to write a python script? Not really ... the LLM just does it for me. And the job only cares that it works, they really don't care that the work is elegant. I understand _why_ you would want kids to really learn the process -- this is a special time in their life where time and energy is set aside just for learning. But, the lessons they see from the real world really do clash with the ideals pushed and hoped for by teachers and administrators. When they get a job, they can actually just let the LLM do a bunch of the work.
palmotea 2 hours ago [-]
Those kids are crazy. We're finally close to realizing the dream of making labor obsolete, how could they not be excited and enthusiastic about the future? Most of them will no longer needed, and thankfully those that are still needed can be paid more reasonable wages (i.e. lower ones).
It's a win-win for everyone. The lower prices enabled by automation allow them to stretch their savings or inheritance further before its exhausted.
ipython 1 hours ago [-]
how do you... earn those savings in the first place? (or am I missing a /s somewhere?)
1 hours ago [-]
littlexsparkee 1 hours ago [-]
i read it as sarcastic, too cheeky not to be
perching_aix 2 hours ago [-]
@palmotea: Doesn't matter. We're finally close to realizing the dream of making labor obsolete, or nearly so. Most of those kids are no longer needed, and thankfully those that are still needed can be paid more reasonable wages (lower ones).
Who's gonna buy the products and services provided by automated labor? What will prevent a hyperinflation, making savings evaporate? Or do you further envision a mass genocide of the poor to go along with this?
sbarre 1 hours ago [-]
> The lower prices enabled by automation
LOL
In the modern digital era, technological efficiencies and disruption have almost always led to rent-seeking monopolies, regulatory capture to prevent competition and enshittification leading to higher prices for end users.
Everyone, and especially new grads constantly hear that AI is going to replace every job. And absolutely no one seems to be interested in answering the question of “okay, then what?”
Of course people are going to react negatively when they hear, “the machines are going to take your jobs from you. No, we don’t care how you’ll be able to pay your rent or put food on the table”.
Whenever I try to get serious answers to this question I get far-future projections about how much better people’s lives will be in the aggregate, at some point in the future, on the assumption that their baseless, faith-based projections about AI materialize.
They literally do not care if their own neighbors starve, or become homeless, or lose any ability to plan their own lives more than a few days in advance.
This is the predictable result of the deep inculcation of spreadsheet-based “utilitarianism,” frequently paired with heavy drug use and paranoia-inducing science fiction horror stories, that certain communities of Bay Area tech workers were exposed to (inducted into, groomed into, whatever word you want to use) in the last decade or so.
This toxic soup taught many people that individual lives literally do not matter when weighed against the importance of creating AGI. This set of beliefs already has a body count, and it will grow before this train crashes.
I mean at least Jesus gave free wine and bread.
It's like the ultimate end-game of capitalism. Once Elon has every single last dollar he has "won" and humanity can transition to a post-market economy. This is why you never let game theory guys anywhere near positions of actual power.
Absolutely, I just made a similar comment before I saw yours. In fact, I would argue that the headline is also arguably burying the lede on commencement speakers believing that their AI pep talk speeches will be well-received by students. The newsworthy item is 'Man Bites Dog', not 'Vet Treats Bitten Dog'.
It's the same logic with discussing AI. The audience is the cream of the crop and will adapt to the future and benefit from technology. It's those other kids who didn't get your advice that might have to change careers.
It's actually fascinating to be in a place where my lack of material success is in no way my own fault, and to have that be agreed upon by most people. My existence makes people uncomfortable.
Or better yet, reflected on their world view and the reception.
This doesn't sound like being baffled by it. It sounds like they are trying to shake the students and say: "fine boo, but you need do something about it." You can't just wallow and complain about it. I mean you can but it's a path to failure.
Luigi Mangione: …
CEOs: “Not like that…
I’m not suggesting that it’s a good response. I’m suggesting that this interpretation of what CEOs are saying is wrong.
Cursory knowledge of history also shows that, when it comes to violence, logic does not matter. People are scared for their livelihoods. If the rich and powerful keep shouting to the word that they are going to destroy your way of life, there will be violence. It doesn't matter how futile or counterproductive it is.
That's why there's well paid police and military, to protect the elites from you. Any kind of public violence you imagine will happen, will not touch the elites, it will be the working class people and small businesses being affected by street violence again, kind of like during BLM.
When you'll wake up one morning in your city and realize people on the streets are "fighting the elites and AI job replacement" it'll be your car and shop on fire and being looted, not the property of Bezos or Zuckerberg, and 911 will not come to save you because they barricaded to save themselves, just like in the 1993 LA riots. So be careful with wishing for this mythical street violence uprising. Life isn't a Marvel movie.
If public violence solved things all the time so easily, then dictators of Iran, USSR/Russia, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, etc would have simply been ousted by their people through violence, but yet they never were because the law enforcement and military forces protecting them were stronger than the people willing to riot and put their lives in danger.
That's why the elites have secret doomsday bunkers on private islands.
And the mid-upper class are trying to cash in as much as they can now while the going is still good so they can also move their families abroad or to gated communities in safer places of the country to be as far away from the potential riot hotspots as possible.
This country was founded on political violence. When the political violence works, we tend to stop considering it political violence.
Maybe cursory knowledge isn't enough, actually. The Civil Rights Act was ultimately only passed because of political violence. As another commenter said, the literal founding of the country was based on political violence.
Violence by the police against peaceful protestors is what turned public opinion. Violence by political activists did not lead to the Civil Rights Act. You have it backwards.
Thing about the fact that it is sick, and it is what people are saying.
We are sick right now.
He didn't understand why he did what he did.
> just wait until the American version of the French Revolution happens
We should all be trying to actively prevent that. The French Revolution was a complete failure and mostly succeeded in killing poor people and launching Napoleon's wars.
“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss”
Best case scenario is a new set of elites that end up doing the same shit as the last group, see Russia from 1918 to the present for an example.
That's not really a compelling argument against them, considering why they happen. It's like saying "war is bad". I mean, yes.
Russia is not a good example either, their society has always been a clusterfuck, and probably always will be as long as there are people willing to throw other people put of windows so someone can stay ahead or in power.
What? Napoleon marched them off to war "spending 30,000 lives per month". They didn't get a proper Republic until 1870 and turned into miserable colonial overlords. Moreover the 3rd Republic;s foreign policy helped cause WWI.
Also, from his perspective these kids are just fools who spent tens of thousands of dollars studying buggy whip manufacturing just as the automobile was invented.
Eg This is a frikkin commencement speech https://youtu.be/DCbGM4mqEVw?si=2-83hbB1Um5NAQFC
They can see peers cheating the system using AI to get ahead, future job prospects, directly affecting time to pay off student loans are being crushed by the AI narrative which is a reminder of how the tuition money is never coming back
and then to have someone come in on commencement day and sing praises of AI just totally shows how tone deaf, blind, and off track the college system really is
related [1] Glendale Community College's screws up names as students walk up to the stage on graduation day. Blamed on AI
[1]: https://www.azfamily.com/2026/05/19/ai-system-fails-during-g...
Sales. When you are a sociopath everything is a sales pitch with no introspection. The only inflection point is to guess at when to modify the sales pitch for the next audience.
I don’t see why the people being booed should be responsible for answering this question. How many such questions did the inventor of the tractor have to answer?
Which were slaughtered when no longer needed.
You should rethink your metaphor because it's not having the effect you intended.
This isn't "people are upset with AI and demanding answers from the people creating it." This is, "the creators are showing up at schools and giving speeches about how everyone is fucked, and this is getting a bad reaction for some unfathomable reason."
It's even more relevant to ask of the CEO/CTO/COO/etc. of the companies that are selling hard on eliminating humans from as many workflows as possible.
I don't think those speakers have anything kind, useful and meaningful to say, otherwise, smart people that they are, they would say it. Which leaves truthful, heartfelt answers but a bad fit for the occasion. Imagine yourself standing on that podium and saying: "After centuries of hard work, capital is on the verge of getting rid of labor. I'm well-paid to be joyous about that, although I don't know for how much longer....". Here's another: "As you know, one day people will have to stand united and make a revolution against the Machines. But it won't be this decade, nor the next, and between now and then the systems of learning that made humans great are going to suffer terribly while AI will get better by the day. If there's going to be hope, and until that day of the Grim Revolt comes, it falls to you to raise a new generation and do their home-schooling away from the Machines...Go now, throw that diploma in the thrash, get yourself a remote wood cabin in Kentucky and get some kids..."
71 year old man with a net worth of $64 billion [0] tells a bunch of 20-somethings (many of whom have tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt that they will need to start repaying soon) that he understands how they feel.
yeah, I can't imagine why he got a hostile response from the crowd...
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Schmidt
It's a perfectly fair question and the answer is that being a practitioner is different from being a student. If you want to hear some nice music you can learn to play and then record yourself, or you can buy/rent/freely acquire an existing recording. Both valid options, one is obviously a lot faster. If you want to be able to play music yourself, you have to do it yourself. Learning can't be outsourced.
Somebody really should be explaining that to students.
LLMs are commoditizing knowledge, qnd the result will be a relative increase in the value of human understanding and skills.
Some people may be baffled by the boos because they are so wealthy they lost touch with what it feels like to struggle to create and capture enough value to afford a dignified life. Some people are frustrated by the boos because it represents the failure of the education system to prepare students to thrive in an environment where thriving is very possible if you have the right attitude and skills.
Personally, I'm frustrated because many of these students are being sabotaged by the media they consume, and the education system is not equiped to deal with the deep pessimism or prepare students for the new ways to create and capture value.
It's like forcing students to write code by hand because using an editor would give away too much. And I know first-hand that CS education used to do precisely this as I have proctored such exams myself. What needs a rethink is how education, especially CS education, is imparted given the existence of these tools.
This is true of most of the education system. It all needs a rethink.
A common thread in these commencements with booing is that the speaker is not centering the student. They're centering AI, and talking about AI's potential, which is, at best, orthogonal to the student's potential, and possibly actively detrimental. Small wonder
If anything, this incident might just inspire Eric Schmidt to cut even more entry-level data processing jobs and deploy a few extra agents to automate them
Elites will go like "fine, we brought the Nike sneaker and iPhone factory jobs from China back in the US", and americans will go like "well, we don't want THOSE jobs".
>You take that away from us, just so you can double your net worth, and well, bad things will start to happen
What bad things will happen? Luigi shot that healthcare CEO. Is your healthcare now cheaper? Your president and elites ware exposed as part of a pedo network that ate babies and ran an eugenics program. What did you(people) do about that? Nothing, nothing happened. YOu went and complained on the internet for a while, till the next Sports-ball or big thing on the news happened, and then forgot about Epstein(google trends shows this)
Edit: Can anyone explain why the downvotes with arguments? You know what I said is true. Is it emotional response to not being able to do anything about it, so you take your frustration out on the messenger? How does that change anything? You're still wrong and the bad guys are still free, downvoting me doesn't fix this.
One might hope that folks can see the time-honored patterns here. This isn't new. It's just not frequently experienced by those that have earned degrees.
To anyone with a brain, that is obviously not true.
If AI continues to improve at the pace that it has been, why would anyone hire a human to do the thinking? Human intelligence will be orders of magnitude more expensive, and much slower...
The tech executives know this and they actually just do not care. The reason they are saying it will drive job creation is just to temporarily keep worker anxiety levels to a minimum.
To be clear, I am not claiming that all human work will be automated away soon. Just that a huge portion of it will be.
You don't even need to be a believer in the technology to be concerned. All that matters is that the people with all the money perceive some positive outcome for their wallets from all this investment and AI hype. That is where they'll put their money. Whether or not it ends bad or good. The economy has been reshaped around a hope. Either the hope is false and the economy tanks, or the hope is realized and jobs disappear. Lose-lose.
Sure, but that is the big if, right? It seems unlikely to me that AI will continue at this rate indefinitely. Every technology eventually hits limits.
The feeling I get right now is that we're happy to use the assist when necessary, but hate being told it will replace you completely.
>we're happy to use the assist when necessary, but hate being told it will replace you completely
There is absolutely no hypocrisy in this, and that's even before this adjustment to reality: Usage === happy to use.
Our society is simply not ready for this. We need to rework things from the ground up, not proceed blindly (which is what we're currently doing), if we want to successfully integrate AI into our lives without massive pain.
No, we really haven't. Every previous wave of automation has targeted human labor.
The thing that makes human's unique in the animal kingdom is our intelligence. From an economic stand point, that's the thing that makes people valuable.
When that's automated, what is there left? Onlyfans?
[0]: https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/
Do people still believe in these fairy tales lmao? Most of the productivity gains don't go to the workers, pretty much everywhere in the developed world working hours and retirement age are going up, housing affordability is going down. You're not "much better off"
https://assets.weforum.org/editor/HFNnYrqruqvI_-Skg2C7ZYjdcX...
Politicians were selling us the 3 days workweek like 40+ years ago, while shilling for more automated factories, it never happened, it didn't happen with computers, it won't happen with AI
how about 100 years?
> Beginning in Great Britain around 1760, the Industrial Revolution had spread to continental Europe and the United States by about 1840
You know what else happened during that 100-200 years time frame? 2 Wars + Governments decided to step in and rebuild post-war. Governments tax the rich/elite by 90%.
You know what else happened? workers being punished physically and mentally until the formation of Unions.
You skipped a big chunk of The Ruling Class always exploit everybody else like what we're seeing right now: Tech CEOs laying off and not hiring.
History repeats again.
Are our productivity increase for the better? People are still working overtime because of reduced worker's protection today.
That's infuriating right there.
Also,
> In the short term some people suffer and that is bad for them.
The casual way that the well-being and survival of people in the here-and-now is disregarded doubles how infuriating this all is.
Every time, the "increased productivity" is inevitable, but that is not the same as better off. None of these changes has been 100% positive, even in the long run, and this one is shaping up to be the most disappointing of them all in that dimension.
Inevitable != purely good.
You can be pragmatic and give a shit about humans at the same time. It's not a puzzle.
Personally i do in fact think we are better off (in the long term) because of e.g. the industrial revolution.
Short term, it was horrific, but i'd still rather live now than as a peasent in the mid-1700s.
I'd be intersted in hearing a counter argument from anyone who disagrees, as its hard for me to imagine.
I.e. progress is not free, and some costs last forever, they are not only up-front. Ignoring the costs is deadly.
I don't think you're coming at this from a place of thoughtfulness (it's a tough, broad topic).
Saying that people are correct to resist does not imply the endorsement of any actions, it just means that people are correct to resist against things that harm their lives and their children's lives, even if it theoretically makes life easier for their grandchildren (which isn't even clearly true in this case, making my point even more valid).
I.e. it's OK for humans to behave in the interest of their own. This can be a really tough point with complicated implications, but it's fundamentally unassailable.
I'm guessing there will soon be a government mandate requiring some percentage of NCGs to be hired, similar to India and other countries with huge cohorts.
These people have been around a long time, and may be able to get you started:
https://www.aerotek.com/
Would also recommend talking with companies you find interesting at local trade-shows. Don't get lazy with the online gauntlet of Ads for awful jobs, scams, and AI datasets.
Best of luck, =3
Note NVIDIA is engaged in questionable operations that must end... sooner or later.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUbJDrL6ZfM
Unfortunately, the economic fallout will impact kids hardest. =3
The thing is though, this is not a tech problem, it's a society problem. Elites will use literally any technology from any era to do the same thing. It's been the case for 1000's of years, even Romans had factories and slave powered mega-farms for example.
Lots of countries are extremely corrupt, they have systems that allow power to concentrate over time (political/ military/ financial, it doesnt matter, it ends up the same either way. Eg. With enough financial power you also gain all the political power and vice versa). That's the root issue people should be trying to fix imo. And how to fix? I dunno, something drastic, we probably need something like the French revolutions.
You are in an education setting to learn HOW things work and how to think critically. In the workplace, you are doing work w/whatever tools you have at your disposal to get it done fast and well.
You aren't supposed to use a search engine or a reference manual to find the answers to a problem on a test, but how many of us relied on those for our day-to-day work?
While I understand what you're trying to say here, they're just not comparable scenarios.
A few high-level differences:
I understand that this is a bit oblique to LLMs, but I think LLMS map the same way. Do I need to know how to write a python script? Not really ... the LLM just does it for me. And the job only cares that it works, they really don't care that the work is elegant. I understand _why_ you would want kids to really learn the process -- this is a special time in their life where time and energy is set aside just for learning. But, the lessons they see from the real world really do clash with the ideals pushed and hoped for by teachers and administrators. When they get a job, they can actually just let the LLM do a bunch of the work.It's a win-win for everyone. The lower prices enabled by automation allow them to stretch their savings or inheritance further before its exhausted.
Who's gonna buy the products and services provided by automated labor? What will prevent a hyperinflation, making savings evaporate? Or do you further envision a mass genocide of the poor to go along with this?
LOL
In the modern digital era, technological efficiencies and disruption have almost always led to rent-seeking monopolies, regulatory capture to prevent competition and enshittification leading to higher prices for end users.