Ok, so apparently we are doing the Uber for nurses now 🤢
What a wonderfull world the techbros have created!
this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2025
21 points (95.7% liked)
TechTakes
1652 readers
63 users here now
Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.
This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.
For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
OT:
Moldbug just reached my local subreddit and this feels really weird (in the bad way). This is a long way from Silicon Valley!
The final race to ~~bubble collapse~~ AGI is afoot so Sergey Brin thinks his workers should work 60 hours a week, and churn out LLM assisted code, and be in the office "at least" 5 days a week https://9to5google.com/2025/02/27/sergey-brin-google-agi/
Of course most people don't have enough money to hire an army of assistants, they have friends and family that they actually like, or they have aspirations beyond babysitting shitty Gemini output every waking hour to further enrich billionaires at the expense of their own health.
But no no, he's right! Those lazy 40-hour workers (the ones who dodged layoffs so far anyway) are doing the bare minimum and have poor work ethic!
I'm sure the man who sleeps with his secretaries on company time has great ideas on how much time I should be in the office.
It doesn't say anywhere in the article whether the memo also mentions why the workers would want that...
Also,
“60 hours a week is the sweet spot of productivity,”
The fuck? That statement is so disconnected from my perceived reality that I have to wonder whether "productivity" even means the same thing to these people as what it means to me.
What the fuck did I just read? I had to double check the year.
I thought even the grifters had finally admitted that upscaling the chatbots won’t lead to anything, and suddenly we’re back at spontaneous emergence of intelligence if we just throw enough shit at the wall?
He highlighted the need for Google’s employees to use more of its A.I. for coding, saying the A.I.’s improving itself would lead to A.G.I.
What even is this? Hitting autocomplete on every word hoping it vomits out AGI by accident? That is certainly an opinion.
Did Sergey hit his head or something? He can’t seriously expert anyone to believe this at this point.
He can’t seriously expert anyone to believe this at this point.
I've been wondering about this for a while. Do they really believe in this stuff or are they just so thoroughly out of ideas for "the next thing that results in exponentially growing profit" that they just cling to it, while deep down knowing it's not actually real?
Friend of the sub Scott doing more supporting of rightwing extremists. Remember when we cried wolf? Good times.
I used to cry wolf. I still cry wolf, but I used to, too
also that bluesk (idk what the bluesky equivalent of a tweet is) is sign-in walled, I can’t read it
idk what the bluesky equivalent of a tweet is
"Skeet" if only to spite Jay Graber
I always liked “bleat” myself, with its slightly mocking overtones, but it never took off.
Goddamn
It's Jonathan Ladd saying,
Scott Alexander, the most influential figure in the online rationalist movement, wrote a review praising white supremacist Richard Hanania's book The Origins Of Woke in 2024.
Yesterday, he congratulated Hanania on the Trump admin adopting the recommendations.
With a link to Scott Adderall's blog.
Should be noted that it's mutual, Hanania has gone to great lengths to suck up to siskind, going back to at least the designer mouth bacteria thing.
Whelp, I made the mistake of following the link and am now just uselessly angry. Here's a link to the excellent If Books Could Kill episode on this bullshit, in case anyone else made the same mistake and also needs a palate cleanser.
Thanks, should have checked if it was readable to the rest of the world. That is what I get for beign lazy and not typing out a full post.
looks like they felt that chatgpt pro wasn't losing money fast enough, you can now get sora on the pro sub
offering sora will only make them sore-er
small domino: Paul Graham's "Hackers and Painters" (2003)
....
big domino: "AI" "art" "realism"
Whilst flipping through LessWrong for things to point and laugh at, I discovered that Sabine Hossenfelder is apparently talking about "AI" now.
Sabine Hossenfelder is a theoretical physicist and science communicator who provides analysis and commentary on a variety of science and technology topics.
She also provides transphobia using false balance rhetoric.
x.AI released its most recent model, Grok 3, a week ago. Grok 3 outperformed on most benchmarks
And truly, no fucks were given.
Grok 3 still features the same problems of previous LLM models, including hallucinations
The fundamental problem remains fundamental? You don't say.
Oh god, Sabine "capitalism is when people buy things and academia is basically communism" Hossenfelder has opinions about AI now.
Be sure to pick up your copy of The War on Science, edited by ... Lawrence Krauss, featuring ... Richard Dawkins and ... Jordan Peterson.
Buchman on Bluesky wonders,
How did they not get a weinstein?
Man, I'm so glad I checked out on that whole environment and always so so sad when anything from that group escapes containment. It's such a reductive and myopic view of what science is and what people are capable of.
New opinion piece from the Guardian: AI is ‘beating’ humans at empathy and creativity. But these games are rigged
The piece is one lengthy sneer aimed at tests trying to prove humanlike qualities in AI, with a passage at the end publicly skewering techno-optimism:
Techno-optimism is more accurately described as “human pessimism” when it assumes that the quality of our character is easily reducible to code. We can acknowledge AI as a technical achievement without mistaking its narrow abilities for the richer qualities we treasure in each other.
I feel like there's both an underlying value judgement underlying the way these studies are designed that leads to yet another example of AI experiments spitting out the exact result they were told to. This was most obvious in the second experiment described in the article about generating ideas for research. The fact that both AI and human respondents had to fit a format to hide stylistic tells suggests that those tells don't matter. Similarly these experiments are designed around the assumption that reddit posts are a meaningful illustration of empathy and that there's no value in actually sharing space and attention with another person. While I'm sure they would phrase it as trying to control for extraneous factors (i.e. to make sure that the only difference perceivable is in the level of empathy), this presupposes that style, affect, mode of communication, etc. don't actually have any value in showing empathy, creativity, or whatever, which is blatantly absurd to anyone who has actually interacted with a human person.
New piece from Baldur Bjarnason: AI and Esoteric Fascism, which focuses heavily on our very good friends and their link to AI as a whole. Ending quote's pretty solid, so I'm dropping it here:
I believe that the current “AI” bubble is an outright Neo-Nazi project that cannot be separated from the thugs and fascists that seem to be taking over the US and indivisible from the 21st century iteration of Esoteric Neo-Nazi mysticism that is the TESCREAL bundle of ideologies.
If that is true, then there is simply no scope for fair or ethical use of these systems.
Anyways, here's my personal sidenote:
As I've mentioned a bajillion times before, I've predicted this AI bubble would kill AI as a concept, as its myriad harms and failures indelibly associate AI with glue pizzas, artists getting screwed, and other such awful things. After reading through this, its clear I've failed to take into account the political elements of this bubble, and how it'd affect things.
My main prediction hasn't changed - I still expect AI as a concept to die once this bubble bursts - but I suspect that AI as a concept will be treated as an inherently fascist concept, and any attempts to revive it will face active ridicule, if not outright hostility.
Well, how do you feel about robotics?
On one hand, I fully agree with you. AI is a rebranding of cybernetics, and both fields are fundamentally inseparable from robotics. The goal of robotics is to create artificial slaves who will labor without wages or solidarity. We're all ethically obliged to question the way that robots affect our lives.
On the other hand, machine learning (ML) isn't going anywhere. In my oversimplification of history, ML was originally developed by Markov and Shannon to make chatbots and predict the weather; we still want to predict the weather, so even a complete death of the chatbot industry won't kill ML. Similarly, some robotics and cybernetics research is still useful even when not applied to replacing humans; robotics is where we learned to apply kinematics, and cybernetics gave us the concept of a massive system that we only partially see and interact with, leading to systems theory.
Here's the kicker: at the end of the day, most people will straight-up refuse to grok that robotics is about slavery. They'll usually refuse to even examine the etymology, let alone the history of dozens of sci-fi authors exploring how robots are slaves or the reality today of robots serving humans in a variety of scenarios. They fundamentally don't see that humans are aggressively chauvinist and exceptionalist in their conception of work and labor. It's a painful and slow conversation just to get them to see the word robota.
Good food for thought, but a lot of that rubs me the wrong way. Slaves are people, machines are not. Slaves are capable of suffering, machines are not. Slaves are robbed of agency they would have if not enslaved, machines would not have agency either way. In a science fiction world with humanlike artificial intelligence the distinction would be more muddled, but back in this reality equivocating between robotics and slavery while ignoring these very important distinctions is just sophistry. Call it chauvinism and exceptionalism all you want, but I think the rights of a farmhand are more important than the rights of a tractor.
It's not that robotics is morally uncomplicated. Luddites had a point. Many people choose to work even in dangerous, painful, degrading or otherwise harmful jobs, because the alternative is poverty. To mechanize such work would reduce immediate harm from the nature of the work itself, but cause indirect harm if the workers are left without income. Overconsumption goes hand in hand with overproduction and automation can increase the production of things that are ultimately harmful. Mechanization has frequently lead to centralization of wealth by giving one party an insurmountable competitive advantage over its competition.
One could take the position that the desire to have work performed for the lowest cost possible is in itself immoral, but that would need some elaboration as well. It's true that automation benefits capital by removing workers' needs from the equation, but it's bad reductionism to call that its only purpose. Is the goal of PPE just to make workers complain less about injuries? I bought a dishwasher recently. Did I do it in order to not pay myself wages or have solidarity for myself when washing dishes by hand?
The etymology part is not convincing either. Would it really make a material difference if more people called them "automata" or something? Čapek chose to name the artificial humanoid workers in his play after an archaic Czech word for serfdom and it caught on. It's interesting trivia, but it's not particularly telling specifically because most people don't know the etymology of the term. The point would be a lot stronger if we called it "slavetronics" or "indenture engineering" instead of robotics. You say cybernetics is inseparable from robotics but I don't see how steering a ship is related to feudalist mode of agricultural production.
I think the central challenge of robotics from an ethical perspective is similar to AI, in that the mundane reality is less actively wrong than the idealistic fantasy. Robotics, even more than most forms of automation, is explicitly about replacing human labor with a machine, and the advantages that machine has over people are largely due to it not having moral weight. Like, you could pay a human worker the same amount of money that electricity to run a robot would cost, it would just be evil to do that. You could work your human workforce as close to 24/7 as possible outside of designated breaks for maintenance, but it would be evil to treat a person that way. At the same time, the fantasy of "hard AI" is explicitly about creating a machine that, within relevant parameters, is indistinguishable from a human being, and as the relevant parameters expand the question of whether that machine ought to be treated as a person, with the same ethical weight as a human being should become harder. If we create Data from TNG he should probably have rights, but the main reason why anyone would be willing to invest in building Data is to have someone with all the capabilities of a person but without the moral (or legal) weight. This creates a paradox of the heap; clearly there is some point at which a reproduction of human cognition deserves moral consideration, and it hasn't been (to my knowledge) conclusively been proven impossible to reach. But the current state of the field obviously doesn't have enough of an internal sense of self to merit that consideration, and I don't know exactly where that line should be drawn. If the AGI crowd took their ideas seriously this would be a point of great concern, but of course they're a derivative neofascist collection of dunces so the moral weight of a human being is basically null to begin with, neatly sidestepping this problem.
But I also think you're right that this problem is largely a result of applying ever-improved automation technologies to a dysfunctional and unjust economic system where any improvement in efficiency effectively creates a massive surplus in the labor market. This drives down the price (i.e. how well workers are treated) and contributes to the immiseration of the larger part of humanity rather than liberating them from the demands for time and energy placed on us by the need to eat food and stuff. If we can deal with the constructed system of economic and political power that surrounds this labor it could and should be liberatory.
view more: next ›