First it was tools to help humans code (Copilot) -- and no one complained because we still needed human coders.<p>Now it's a near fully-functional teammate that needs a bit of supervision -- still no one complained because it needs human team members to instruct it<p>Next it will be a full-functional teammate that is probably as good as a junior coder -- but no one will complain because senior coders will get paid more and companies will have to hire less<p>Then, there will be the expert AI coder, but still no one will complain because we will need system architects to design the system that the AI codes.<p>All along, no one will complain because those with jobs will still have them and those without will be too busy thinking about how to provide for their families. Get another job? Oh yeah, AI took that one too.<p>All along, we are incrementally improving AI because it is an intellectual amusement -- we simply never take into account the social consequences. This path of destruction is so blindingly obvious, it's incredible that everyone is still working on AI instead of trying to destroy it. But wait, I get it, those who jump on earliest still have a chance at a bit of profit....<p>...so it's all worth it in the end, right?
On the ethics ...<p>Kentaro Toyama talks about technology as an amplifier for human intent.<p>Just as you could tighten a nut with your hands, you can tighten it so much more with a wrench.<p>Whether that nut is employed in a machine that will bring bounty for a village, or it's employed in a machine whose output by law belongs to its private owners is entirely up to the inhabitants.<p>Will the villagers band together and build their own machine?<p>Or will the authorities give the private creator of the machine exclusivity of the land the machine runs on and its output, leaving the villagers bereft?<p>Whatever state our world is in is a result of our peers decision, not "good" or "bad" technology. Humans will legislate: "good" and "bad" uses are up to them, and later on up to the executive and judicial system.<p>Pro-social (*not the same as socialist) cultures will share the wealth, others will hoard it, and you get the effects you dread: unemployment, poverty, etc.<p>Now, a better question is: is a technology too powerful or misunderstood that it might be misused, regardless of the creator's intent?
Devin, build an AI Systems Analyst (Aisa)
Aisa, build an AI Business Analyst (Aiba)
Aiba, build an AI Financial Analyst (Aifa)
Aifa, build an AI Market Analyst (Aima)<p>Aima, find a lucrative market for a new app
Aifa, determine the cost building the new app
Aiba, create the business model for the new app
Aisa, create the use case functional spec for the new app
Devin, create the new app
The ultimate goal of an organization (and society) is to disrupt itself. Then the new order becomes an evolution of the old and thus it becomes a continuity.
I full on don't understand why we're building this stuff, whether it's autonomous driving to put truckers out of work, AI teaching assistants to put teachers/tutors/professors out of work, coding assistants to put programmers out of work, AI article writers to put journalists out of work, AI image generators to put artists out of work, AI video generators to put the film industry on ice, AI accountants, marketers, ad nauseum. Is the idea "well sure we'll put 90% of people out of work, but the very-well-known-to-be-well-functioning-government will do... something to fix it, something that definitely isn't tax away the millions I earned putting everyone else out of work to support everyone I put out of work"?<p>This is a total reshaping of society at worst, and a huge transfer of wealth with almost no steps at best. How does anyone working on this justify causing unemployment on a mass scale while collecting a huge check? Is it just "progress gonna progress?" Do you really believe that justifies all the consequences? Is it, "if not me/us then someone else (worse)"? Then why aren't you giving control of these tools to the workers? Why are you profiting so handsomely?<p>This is nuts. Normally I don't go full communist rant, but a few hundred people (presumably some of whom read HN) are about to destroy our society without asking a single one of us, and with absolutely no regard for the consequences.