Many of these developers adopted the tools against their will, as means to bring home salary while they still can. In the mean time, the AI folks are working hard to just eliminate their job.
You know, perspective matters. When you sell a knife with the promise of a tool that helps you cut onions, is a completely different story from when you market it as a weapon to kill your neighbor.
AI is massively marketed by AI people as a tool to replace your job. So either the AI people are bad at marketing or the gains in other industry are insignificant/ do not generate shareholder value.
Gee I wonder why? Could it be because they promised to improve our lives but instead we are losing our jobs? Or maybe because there is insane shortage of electronics for the sake of AI data center? No, I think it should be the fact that this tech consumes more power than an average city. Actually, it must the fact that we have autonomous killing drones now. Or maybe it’s the misinformation slop? Nah, it should be the mass stealing of intellectual property.
$40B. Insane. Imagine what could be done with this money to improve humanity. Instead, it’s spent on a fancy text generator that promises to eliminate most of the non mundane and physical jobs, as well as create autonomous killing machines, on top of burning the entire worlds electricity. Crazy.
you can say the same about every recent US war, and add one 0 to the sum.
Or, more controversially, say EU green deal which decimated EU car industry and lost/will lose us few millions of jobs. Losses up to a trillion and nothing to show for that
The job losses don't have to happen and it's a failure of the government in allowing it happen. There is always a job to be done if people are willing to work, there are always people willing to do certain types of work.
Nah they are just replaced by chinese cars, people won't drive less or buy less cars just because EU became noncompetitive. We just lost big part of economy to somebody else.
What a hilariously moronic comment. In what way is this true? When the cotton gin was invented, slavery absolutely exploded and productivity rose like several 100,000%.
Was this meaningful for humanity? Keeping 20% of the population in bondage because we didn't want to upset the productivity gains of slavers in the south? All progress IS progress after all right?
Government welfare programs have done more to decrease poverty than anything else in the history of human existence. Also one doesn't have to go back in time 200+ years either to see the massive failures of neoliberal economics. Who thinks their lives are better because they have slightly faster phone while they continue to not afford healthcare, can't educate themselves, provide for children, or own homes.
You think 50% of the population seeing their lives materially decrease is meaningful? Good grief, do you honestly care more about trinkets than children? Actually don't answer that for the sake of your soul.
i'm a bit worried for politics in the next 10-20 years because the upper class believe in conspiracy theories like this.
all your welfare and distribution were only possible because technology created the wealth that could be redistributed later. i would suggest researching this with a calm mind.
> Was this meaningful for humanity? Keeping 20% of the population in bondage because we didn't want to upset the productivity gains of slavers in the south? All progress IS progress after all right?
Slavery was actually leading to less overall productivity, abolishing it was crucial to make everyone richer and not just the slaves.
Apart from that, technology (and not redistribution) mostly resulted in much higher life expectancy and much lower poverty levels especially in developing countries like India and China.
You can ask your favourite LLM agent the primary reason the world achieved emancipation from poverty (hint it was because of economic activity and technology)
This money could be invested in universal healthcare, or into AI research for medicine. But hey, I guess replacing developers and generating slop is more beneficial to our society.
I mean, what's the future now? Everyone just vibecoding their own private tools that no "foreign government" has access to? It honestly feels like everything is slowly starting to collapse.
Also didn't Microsoft (the owner of GitHub) got access to Claude Mythos in order to "seCuRe cRitiCal SoftWaRe InfRasTructUre FoR teh AI eRa"? Hows securing GitHub Action going for them?
Not impossible though, I run a directory of open-source alternatives and rarely do you see what Cal.com did. Projects gets abandoned yes, but a pure bait and switch like this really grinds my gears. This is from someone who is self hosting Cal.com right now and now they are going to strip even more features.
Their docs say cal.fyi won’t have team features but my self hosted one does. They are a bit hacky. I think they also said they will stop publishing a docker image and that’s what I use to self host. I think I might just build an alternative over the weekend.
I had a perfectly fine iPhone 11 I bought new. The first thing I replaced in it was battery. I had to pay for “genuine” Apple battery + certified laboratory. The price was higher than the price of my iPhone as second hand, but I liked this phone.
Then I sold it, because I ran out of 64GB space. If I could add an sd card, I would probably use this phone longer, instead of contributing to consumerism and creating more e-waste.
I wish that people would think about sustainability and using their devices for longer rather than chasing “new and shiny” every year Apple releases the “best iPhone we ever made”
I just don’t understand how does it work. Like where do you find such people? How do you make them beg you? Isn’t building in a saturated market kind of proves that there is demand?
the begging thing is a bit of a myth imo. what it actually looks like is you describe the problem out loud to someone and they go , god yes that's exactly it - before you've even mentioned a solution. that reaction is the signal. you're not manufacturing demand you're just finding where it already exists. the hardest part is you need to talk to a lot of people before you find that reaction, that was the biggest pitfall i fell into during my first startup. trying hard not to make the same mistake twice, youve to be really mindful
If you cant find the people, may not be the right market for you :) ideally you are exposed to target market directly, and daily. Or you team up with a cofounder who is. Re: building in saturated market - “prove” is a strong word. It’s another signal. And you can judge for yourself how strong :) i dont think anything can replace direct customer feedback
reply