You're describing the same alienation of labor Marx identified 150+ years ago. It was only a matter of time before it caught up with our field. Someone who used to make their own clothes, from planting the cotton, to picking it to turning it into thread to weaving the thread into fabric to creating the piece of clothing felt a LOT less pride in their work when it was transferred to a factory line or automated loom.
non sequitur. English through an LLM isn't the same as a higher level language compiling to a lower one.
I am very familiar with this because I write Haskell. Which compiles to Core. Which is actually an extension of Sustem F which itself is an extension of lambda calculus. That then compiles to STG. That then compiles to Cmm. That then compiles to assembly code.
See how that isn't the same as an LLM? To the point where your comment is a non sequitur?
The people who own the tools decide how the productivity gains are distributed. The workers could produce the same output in less same and go home earlier. Or the capitalists could keep the worker there the same (or more) hours per day and capture the extra output as profit.
Under capitalism, the choice is always the latter. You correctly identified the pattern that Marx described over 100 years ago. The capitalists own the tools and control the conditions of our labor as software developers. They extract that productivity gain as surplus value, and will never choose to willingly give us more leisure time.
The Shanghai government surveillance drones are mobile, whereas the Flock government surveillance cameras are stationary! USA FTW, liberty and justice for all
This is silly. Would you perform the same test against Western models in asking them whether Israel is a genocidal apartheid state? It'll give you the same roundabout explanations and "some say no some say yes" responses that you'll get from asking Qwen about Uighurs or the protests of 1989.
Your account is now flagged and put on a watchlist.
Your ID has been passed to Israel and your internalized "threat" rating number increased 300 units. Every packet you produce on the internet is now earmarked for 100 year retention.
We did know in the 20s. We knew in the 30s. We knew in the 40s. We absolutely knew in the 50s (oil industry funded their own studies on this). We knew before we decided to direct billions into a federal interstate highway system that bulldozed countless communities of color and killed many cities' downtowns and sense of connectedness.
I don't see anything positive about being forced to participate in this car-ownership game where 99% of North American cities are designed around car ownership, and if you don't own a car you're screwed. I don't WANT to own a car, I don't want to direct countless thousands of dollars to a car note, car maintenance, gas, etc. I want the freedom to exist without needing to own an absurdly expensive vehicle to get myself around. There's nothing freeing or positive about that unless all you've ever known and all you can imagine is a world in which cities are designed around cars and not people.
It was pretty well established scientifically in 1900 that increasing atmospheric CO2 would result in increasing global temperature, but I don't think it was really in the public awareness for many decades. "Global warming" wasn't coined until the '70s.
We shouldn't have to completely upend our lives to move to the small handful of major cities that provide the infrastructure to exist comfortably without a car. At least in the US, your options are limited to NYC, Chicago, Boston, and maybe a few others (Seattle/SF). And even then, the hard set default in these major cities is car ownership EXCEPT for NYC.
as someone who lives there, they're not. Nor is that what is being suggested, it's critiquing car-centric cities where not having a car is needlessly difficult. Population 250 isn't going to ban cars, but the city may discourage driving and provide ample facilities for those who don't have a car.
Well I do agree that city living should not require a car, although cars should be an option for those who need them. I just don’t think it’s realistic to expect rural areas to discourage car use. Not everyone in rural communities has a car, but for many they are essential.
reply