I think we agree that in terms of work, AI changes a lot, and that's a big deal and disrupting to a lot of people's livelihoods.
But when I am with friends, out for a mtn bike ride or playing golf, we are just hanging out like we did 20 years ago. I dont see any cars and I am sure there are tons of AI apps for both sports that would make me "better" but I really don't care. I don't do it for the outcome.
The bonding, happiness, sharing, laughing, are all there just like it always has been and always will be.
You can CHOOSE to let AI think for you or achieve for you, but you dont have to. You only HAVE to in a work context (for some people), which I admit sucks (or is great depending on who you are).
I'm confused. It feels like you are saying you did those things as a means to an end.
Like saying I no longer walk because I can drive. I no longer cook because Doordash exists. I no longer play piano because midi exists.
I mean i guess, but it seems like you didn't LIKE crafting the text or coding from scratch, you just wanted the outcome. If we are talking purely about work, I understand that its about being productive and it sucks to have a job shift to something you enjoy less.
But for daily life? I dont see how it changes, maybe its a tech thing where people think about making their daily lives more productive, but most people dont.
Have you never gone to a bookstore in real life and just browsed? Not everything has to come from recommendation or reviews or research. It can just be pure exploration.
Its the same process online and offline: See an interesting cover/title, read the dust cover, skim a page to get the writing style, buy or dont buy.
Sure, you will get "more bad than good" but not everything needs to be efficient, and in the old days, the bookstore played the role of curator so you could have a great experience spending a few hours in the store. You would come away having discovered a book that isnt the hotest thing on some review site or message board. That's probably the experience she has been replicating, but now the overall quality has gone down.
Claude would RUN for longer than 30 mins building something like this.
its 29 a year. At an hourly wage of $40 an hour. You would have to spend less than 45 minutes thinking about this and then NEVER touch it again for a year. No security updates, no improvements, no errors that you might have to fix, no handling bots or abuse.
You would only do that if your hobby is building random things. Not if you are a local teacher or coach.
Interesting that humans can't be trained to improve ("be less biased") but AI can. I would say this is a much more damning conclusion for the AI replacing ICs than managers.
Whats easier, training AI to make good bets (what does that mean in business? Make the most money? Worker quality of life? World a better place?) or training it to get code to compile?
Management advocates for AI because see ICs as commodities that just need to be coordinated to "do the thing." In this situation, remove the mid-managers, replace the ICs with AI, and use AI to enable them to coordinate the "workers." They forget that organizations exist to organize human output, which requires nuance, empathy, and communication.
ICs advocate for AI because they believe they are "doing the most valuable work." A rational AI would see that and let them do it. In this situation, remove the mid management, replace HR/marketing/sales/etc with AI and use AI to enable them to figure out what to build and they build twice as fast. They forget that the "rational" choice might not be what is best for them, their project, or their career.
Each one rebuts this with the way the system has failed them (managers feel that workers do everything BUT the work that moves the company forward, ICs feel like they can do everything BUT the work that moves the company forward)
So you've got that market. Let's call it the demand BY knowledge workers to do the work. You've also got:
2. The companies themselves buying tokens for operations to make the work more efficent.
e.g. Salesforce agent or Microsoft Office agent or random saas inventory agent. (and if you say those will go away (which I don't believe), it's even more bullish. The tokens just go to someone vibe coding XYZ, which is EVEN MORE than if you were to buy saas because it's SaaS product x Companies that built it instead of just one)
3. The companies SELLING tokens. This is also new markets like schools and small business (e.g. the local gas station buying an inventory tool)
4. The consumers "buying" (I put in quotes because it can be subsidised but the company) through chatgpt, strava, instagram/netflix recommendation, etc.
Local models still take compute, and while it may be cheaper, it is the same argument of on prem vs cloud. No one operates on prem unless you HAVE to for regulatory. Margins will come down and you just spin up a GCP/OpenAI/Anthropic agent.
It may be "cheaper" but rationally its better to pay someone to manage it. Thats why Hetzner only had $367M in revneue (a lot but tiny compared to managed services)
I just have different moral preferences. I think its morally wrong to do illegal/morally wrong/irresponsible things in general, whether I am using a hammer, a car, a company, or AI.
It's worse to ask someone else to break a window with a hammer for me, but the window still got broken, and the person whose window it was is still sad/out of money/etc.
The thought experiment was that if you were doing illegal things with an AI, you would not feel bad, but if you found out that the AI was a person, you would feel bad. That is very strange to me, more a feeling of guilt/shame.
I am not arguing its RIGHT to stop supporting games. It's just a sad situation where people frame these things as moral/ethical debates when they have real world costs to players who get less games and game makers who will go out of business and the big business that people want to hurt will be just fine.
I think your analogy is a great one. I had a plan to pour a pillar that wouldn't exist without me somewhere (lets say this is online matchmaking), and you come and tell me I cant do my plan anymore, or if I do, I have to pour a second/different one (self hosted servers or p2p) or give away the pillar I make for free.
Games take money to maintain, if you make a law that forces people to maintain them for longer (or forever), that increases the costs. Higher costs -> less games. Most game makers are not Electronic Arts or Rockstar. Those companies will be 100% fine and will pass any costs onto you.
It just seems crazy that a company should be forced to give a refund to all players or spend 1000s of person-hours implementing outdated multiplayer features becasue only 50 people are playing their game once a month.
I won't enjoy it, and things aren't perfect as they are, but I will think back to this thread when the articles of layoffs, price hikes, ads, dark patterns, and "lack of quality games" become more and more prevalent because this law will have directly influenced it.
its such a bummer that because of laws like this, less games will be made. Most games dont ever make money and dont succeed.
The alternative to companies shutting games down without supporting them is not them supporting them, it is them not making them in the first place or making them very expensive (price, ads, pay to play, etc.).
The customer now has to pay a tax becasue of the cost this puts on game makers. This is not good :(
People who haven’t been hacked just haven’t been looked at. If someone wants to hack you, they will hack you. It’s really unfortunate that people have this level of confidence in their ability.
But when I am with friends, out for a mtn bike ride or playing golf, we are just hanging out like we did 20 years ago. I dont see any cars and I am sure there are tons of AI apps for both sports that would make me "better" but I really don't care. I don't do it for the outcome.
The bonding, happiness, sharing, laughing, are all there just like it always has been and always will be.