He is mad at others using AI on his favorite blogging website. I think it is an insult to himself, because most AI produced articles etc. are unreadable and full of useless filler information - I think the guy can do better.
...
TekMol's comment is using a historical analogy to make a point about the current situation with AI. Let's break it down:
The Analogy Explained
Ice delivery guy = Workers in traditional industries
Going on strike = Protesting against technological change
Demanding a ban on fridges = Calling for a ban on AI
Before refrigerators became common household appliances, there was an industry of ice delivery. Workers would cut ice from frozen lakes or produce it in ice houses, then deliver it to homes and businesses for food preservation. The Point of the Analogy
TekMol is suggesting that demanding a ban on AI is similar to how ice delivery workers might have reacted to the invention of refrigerators. Just as refrigerators made ice delivery obsolete, AI is perceived as a threat to certain jobs or industries.
The Implied Message
The comment implies that trying to ban AI (or expressing hate for it) is:
Futile - like trying to stop technological progress
Short-sighted - not recognizing the potential benefits of the new technology
Self-defeating - potentially harming oneself by resisting inevitable change
...
This was my prompt:
TekMol writes a comment about an article where the author expressis his hate for AI: "Ice delivery guy goes on strike. Demands ban of fridges."
ayaen asks: "I am sorry, the analogy is completely lost on me. Care to expand? Thanks."
Can you explain the analogy to ayaen?
Ice delivery guy = Traditional writer Going on strike = Complaining or protesting Demanding ban of fridges = Calling for restrictions on generative AI The analogy suggests that the writer's complaint about generative AI is as futile and outdated as an ice delivery person trying to ban refrigerators. Just as refrigerators made ice delivery largely obsolete, the implication is that generative AI might be seen as a technological advancement that could potentially impact traditional writing roles.
Yes, and we left people behind repeatedly. You'll notice people who may have intellectual or learning disabilities can no longer find a job with a decent wage in the US. Previously they could, because manual labor jobs were plenty. Now those are automated.
When we further automate and automate, we raise the barrier to entry, because robots or AI can perform the bottom most tasks. So, people who are not capable are left behind, and eventually there will be nobody to work jobs.
If the average job requires reading and writing, most people can do it. If the average job requires a high school diploma, less can do it. If the average job requires a degree, even less can do it, and so on and so on.
Isn't the end result - all work being done by technology and all people having all of their time to spend on fun activities - a pretty nice situation?
What could possibly make you think this is the end result?
In the past 50 years, productivity across the whole economy has went up over an order of magnitude. People in the 70s were working 40 hours a week - are you now working 4 hours?
We don't have precedent for this, is my point. The solution to lost work is make people work something else. My point is what happens when there is no something else for those people to work?
Will we have leisure? Who will pay for uncapable people to have leisure? This sounds like UBI.
> all work being done by technology and all people having all of their time to spend on fun activities
Maybe in the end, but what happens before that? Like, say, 25% of people are "smart" enough to still work a job, what happens to the 75%? Or even 90% of people work but 10% can't, do we just like... kill those 10% or?
We haven't really figured this out.