A quote attributed to Pablo Picasso expresses it well: “What good are computers? They can only give you answers.”
9,264 karma · joined October 19, 2016
I'd say that those make up the majority of it. During the dotcom bust, there were waves of bankruptcies and layoffs, tech stock valuations crashing and staying stagnant, and people struggling to find jobs for months, etc. too and there was industry-wide doom and gloom and pundits proclaiming that software was no longer worth getting into. So all this angst seems very familiar. People would probably not be as bothered about AI if the the career outlook was positive.
The best part is that the AI companies get paid for both causing immense societal problems and combating the problems their tools are causing. It's perfectly Kafkaesque and the best part it is going unremarked right out in the open.
In the future, maybe we won't need election analyses to predict political victories, we can just ask all of the major brand of AIs who a voter should choose and then multiply by the market share of each AI, dohohoho.
Even if you're aware of this and try to use AI in ways that don't compromise your intellect, you won't be able to escape the trap. It's just too powerful, too much of a productivity amplifier, just plain too convenient to avoid entirely and so you'll sink deeper and deeper into the quagmire as your mental skills devolve into mush from disuse, all while insisting to yourself that you're just as sharp as you once were. Thus AI succeeds in destroying humanity without even having to reach sapience itself.
The guidelines for Show HN submissions can be found at https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html.
That example works against you: people deride "asset flip" games all the time where no creative effort was put into the game and it's just the engine and stock assets wired together with only sample gameplay code.
Those who bring up OoO as if it caused unpredictable execution should ask their LLM what a reorder buffer is and why it exists.