It doesn't matter if it works(henry.codes)
henry.codes
It doesn't matter if it works
https://henry.codes/writing/it-doesnt-matter-if-it-works/
17 comments
I just want to call out that the craft in the webpage is exactly the kind of thing AI cannot produce: it's quirky and tasteful and combines modern web influences with graphic print traditions - it is awesome.
“… the kind of thing AI can’t produce”.
Many similar claims have not aged well.
We’re deep into ‘no true Scotsman’ territory.
Many similar claims have not aged well.
We’re deep into ‘no true Scotsman’ territory.
Are you sure about that? For all you know AI was used in the webpage design
> Those increasingly specific roles, in increasingly complex systems, meant that the average level of wide conceptual understanding of each worker was reduced
This is one of the foundational premises of this whole piece, and it's false.
The other premise is AI doesn't work, and that's actually true.
How is it that just a few years ago everyone was whining about needing more skills than ever to do their job, and now suddenly "because AI" they don't? Which is it?
This is one of the foundational premises of this whole piece, and it's false.
The other premise is AI doesn't work, and that's actually true.
How is it that just a few years ago everyone was whining about needing more skills than ever to do their job, and now suddenly "because AI" they don't? Which is it?
If taking the sentence out of context wasn't intended, you may want to (re)read the article because 'and now suddenly "because AI" they don't?' isn't even remotely close to what is being said in that paragraph and the one after.
???
The entire post is the same topic repeated ad-nauseam that "deskilling" concentrates labor into roles with less scope so that automation can take over.
I'm saying the opposite has been happening for decades. The only people who think that work is getting less skilled are on the far extremes of the political spectrum. They're both allergic to work and dream up disaster or utopia to get their way.
The entire post is the same topic repeated ad-nauseam that "deskilling" concentrates labor into roles with less scope so that automation can take over.
I'm saying the opposite has been happening for decades. The only people who think that work is getting less skilled are on the far extremes of the political spectrum. They're both allergic to work and dream up disaster or utopia to get their way.
I still can't really tell if you re(read) the article properly and it seems like you are just making assertions against what doesn't fit your _beliefs_ and just label anything that seems to deviate even just slightly with labels like "repeated ad-nauseam", "far extremes of the political spectrum", etc., which isn't fun to engage with.
Good work takes skill. The tech industry long ago realized that good work is not required to stay in business. The industry is overflowing with mediocre workers who feel little pressure to master their craft.
The tech industry is not the broader corporate world or economy. The tech industry has a lot of egg on its face due to AI hype.
It's more exciting to think about evil people plotting how they will control the labor force and steal all its knowledge, but I think both the AI use and the alleged extraction of knowledge of design and craft are better explained by, like, "the job got crazy popular, the labor force multiplied, a lot of less passionate people got involved, and then some solutions were found"
> I think both the AI use and the alleged extraction of knowledge of design and craft are better explained by, like, "the job got crazy popular, the labor force multiplied, a lot of less passionate people got involved, and then some solutions were found"
I don't understand the logic in this. Before AI, if a job was crazy popular and a lot more people got involved passionate or not, it's still _people_ doing things at the rate limit of _people_? Even people with disproportionately large amount of resources to do things they still had to hire the _people_ who can do the job to do it? How is that anything close to the issues presented in the article?
Passion also has nothing to do with being professional. You can do a job extremely well by being professional but not at all passionate about it, and you can be extremely passionate about something but absolutely terrible at doing it as a job. The labor force requires you to be professional, not passionate. Great if you get to be both because you are the lucky few.
I don't understand the logic in this. Before AI, if a job was crazy popular and a lot more people got involved passionate or not, it's still _people_ doing things at the rate limit of _people_? Even people with disproportionately large amount of resources to do things they still had to hire the _people_ who can do the job to do it? How is that anything close to the issues presented in the article?
Passion also has nothing to do with being professional. You can do a job extremely well by being professional but not at all passionate about it, and you can be extremely passionate about something but absolutely terrible at doing it as a job. The labor force requires you to be professional, not passionate. Great if you get to be both because you are the lucky few.
The premise of the article seems odd. It essentially says that AI is a threat to labor no matter if it works, because even if it doesn't, it still gives companies an excuse to fire people.
But... companies can always fire people? Yes, AI may be a face-saving excuse after post-COVID overhiring, but you can always get fired. Economic downturns, tariffs, you name it. The housing crisis had nothing to do with AI.
The reason that companies don't "RIF any%" (author's words) every year is mostly that they can't do that and stay in business. They need people, and in the "AI doesn't work" scenario, they will continue to need them.
I feel that in the article, the main thesis isn't really developed and just seems like an excuse to talk about class warfare and the evils of capitalism. Which is obviously a fine thing to blog about, but I think it's just preaching to the choir.
But... companies can always fire people? Yes, AI may be a face-saving excuse after post-COVID overhiring, but you can always get fired. Economic downturns, tariffs, you name it. The housing crisis had nothing to do with AI.
The reason that companies don't "RIF any%" (author's words) every year is mostly that they can't do that and stay in business. They need people, and in the "AI doesn't work" scenario, they will continue to need them.
I feel that in the article, the main thesis isn't really developed and just seems like an excuse to talk about class warfare and the evils of capitalism. Which is obviously a fine thing to blog about, but I think it's just preaching to the choir.
One hardly needs an excuse to talk about class warfare and the evils of capitalism, since their deleterious effects are all around you, if you can pause your xBox game or Netflix special for a few minutes and look at how the world works.
I run a business and have occasionally benefited from the fact that people want work so badly that I can get their skilled labor at an absurdly low price.
AI is having a devastating effect on the psychology of the industry, regardless of the fact that it largely sucks. The author of this piece makes an excellent point.
I run a business and have occasionally benefited from the fact that people want work so badly that I can get their skilled labor at an absurdly low price.
AI is having a devastating effect on the psychology of the industry, regardless of the fact that it largely sucks. The author of this piece makes an excellent point.
I’m glad to see that there aren’t any comments here about how tech is special and doesn’t need a labor union.
Times are certainly changing!
I for one would prefer not to be a part of a monopoly that extorts society for my own well being, though I certainly understand the appeal.
Only losers think it doesn’t matter if it works.