Taking a moral stance against AI might make you feel good but doesn't serve the customer in the end. They need value for money. And you can get a lot of value from AI these days; especially if you are doing marketing, frontend design, etc. and all the other stuff a studio like this would be doing.
The expertise and skill still matter. But customers are going to get a lot further without such a studio and the remaining market is going to be smaller and much more competitive.
There's a lot of other work emerging though. IMHO the software integration market is where the action is going to be for the next decade or so. Legacy ERP systems, finance, insurance, medical software, etc. None of that stuff is going away or at risk of being replaced with some vibe coded thing. There are decades worth of still widely used and critically important software that can be integrated, adapted, etc. for the modern era. That work can be partly AI assisted of course. But you need to deeply understand the current market to be credible there. For any new things, the ambition level is just going to be much higher and require more skill.
Arguing against progress as it is happening is as old as the tech industry. It never works. There's a generation of new programmers coming into the market and they are not going to hold back.
So let's all just give zero fucks about our moral values and just multiply monetary ones.
You are misconstruing the original point. They are simply suggesting that the moral qualms of using AI are simply not that high - neither to vast majority of consumers, neither to the government. There are a few people who might exaggerate these moral issues for self service but they wouldn't matter in the long term.
That is not to suggest there are absolutely no legitimate moral problems with AI but they will pale in comparison to what the market needs.
If AI can make things 1000x more efficient, humanity will collectively agree in one way or the other to ignore or work around the "moral hazards" for the greater good.
You can start by explaining what your specific moral value is that goes against AI use? It might bring to clarity whether these values are that important at all to begin with.
Is that the promise of the faustian bargain we're signing?
Once the ink is dry, should I expect to be living in a 900,000 sq ft apartment, or be spending $20/year on healthcare? Or be working only an hour a week?
We can live without a flat screen TV (which has gotten dirt cheap). We can't live without a decent house. Or worse, while we can live in some 500 sq ft shack we can't truly "live" if there's no other public amenities to gather and socialize without nickel-and-diming us.
But it requires giving up things a lot of people don't want to, because consuming less once you are used to consuming more sucks. Here is a list of things people can cut from their life that are part of the "consumption has gone up" and "new categories of consumption were opened" that ovi256 was talking about:
- One can give up cell phones, headphones/earbuds, mobile phone plans, mobile data plans, tablets, ereaders, and paid apps/services. That can save $100/mo in bills and amortized hardware. These were a luxury 20 years ago.
- One can give up laptops, desktops, gaming consoles, internet service, and paid apps/services. That can save another $100/months in bills and amortized hardware. These were a luxury 30 years ago.
- One can give up imported produce and year-round availability of fresh foods. Depending on your family size and eating habits, that could save almost nothing, or up to hundreds of dollars every month. This was a luxury 50 years ago.
- One can give up restaurant, take-out, and home pre-packaged foods. Again depending on your family size and eating habits, that could save nothing-to-hundreds every month. This was a luxury 70 years ago.
- One can give up car ownership, car rentals, car insurance, car maintenance, and gasoline. In urban areas, walking and public transit are much cheaper options. In rural areas, walking, bicycling, and getting rides from shuttle services and/or friends are much cheaper options. That could save over a thousand dollars a month per 15,000 miles. This was a luxury 80 years ago.
I could keep going, but by this point I've likely suggested cutting something you now consider necessary consumption. If you thought one "can't just give that up nowadays," I'm not saying you're right or wrong. I'm just hoping you acknowledge that what people consider optional consumption has changed, which means people consume a lot more.
It's not clear that it's still possible to function in society today with out a cell phone and a cell phone plan. Many things that were possible to do before without one now require it.
> - One can give up laptops, desktops, gaming consoles, internet service, and paid apps/services. That can save another $100/months in bills and amortized hardware. These were a luxury 30 years ago.
Maybe you can replace these with the cell phone + plan.
> - One can give up imported produce and year-round availability of fresh foods. Depending on your family size and eating habits, that could save almost nothing, or up to hundreds of dollars every month. This was a luxury 50 years ago.
It's not clear that imported food is cheaper than locally grown food. Also I'm not sure you have the right time frame. I'm pretty sure my parents were buying imported produce in the winter when I was a kid 50 years ago.
> - One can give up restaurant, take-out, and home pre-packaged foods. Again depending on your family size and eating habits, that could save nothing-to-hundreds every month. This was a luxury 70 years ago.
Agreed.
> - One can give up car ownership, car rentals, car insurance, car maintenance, and gasoline. In urban areas, walking and public transit are much cheaper options. In rural areas, walking, bicycling, and getting rides from shuttle services and/or friends are much cheaper options. That could save over a thousand dollars a month per 15,000 miles. This was a luxury 80 years ago.
Yes but in urban areas whatever you're saving on cars you are probably spending on higher rent and mortgage costs compared to rural areas where cars are a necessity. And if we're talking USA, many urban areas have terrible public transportation and you probably still need Uber or the equivalent some of the time, depending on just how walkable/bike-able your neighborhood is.
> It's not clear that it's still possible to function in society today with out a cell phone
Like I said... I've likely suggested cutting something you now consider necessary consumption. If you thought one "can't just give that up nowadays," I'm not saying you're right or wrong. I'm just hoping you acknowledge that what people consider optional consumption has changed, which means people consume a lot more.
---
As an aside, I live in a rural area. The population of my county is about 17,000 and the population of its county seat is about 3,000. We're a good 40 minutes away from the city that centers the Metropolitan Statistical Area. A 1 bedroom apartment is $400/mo and a 2 bedroom apartment is $600/mo. In one month, minimum wage will be $15/hr.
Some folks here do live without a car. It is possible. They get by in exactly the ways I described (except some of the Amish/Mennonites, who also use horses). It's not preferred (except by some of the Amish/Mennonites), but one can make it work.
This idea that increased consumption over the past century has been irrelevant to quality of life is just absurd.
Past 50 years...meh.
I've been alive slightly longer than that. And can't say life today is definitively better than 50 years ago in the USA.
It was the tail end of one income affording a house and groceries for a family. So to afford the same things, for many families requires almost double the labor.
A lot of new medical treatments, less smoking and drinking, overall longer life spans. But more recently increases to longevity have plateaued, and an epic of obesity has mitigated a lot of the health care improvements. And the astronomical increases in health care costs means improvements to health care capabilities are not available to a lot of people, at least not without greatly reducing their standard of living elsewhere.
College and university costs have grown exponentially, with no discernible increase in the quality of learning.
Housing prices far outpacing inflation of other goods and services.
Fewer intact families, less in person interactions, and the heroin like addictiveness of screens, have ushered in an epidemic of mental illness that might be unprecedented.
Now AI scaring the shit out of everyone, that no matter how hard you study, how disciplined and responsible you are, there's a good chance you will not be gainfully employed.
I frankly think the quality of life in the world I grew up in is better than the one my kids have today.
But if we take "surprisingly small salary" to literally mean salary, most (... all?) salaried jobs require you to work full time, 40 hours a week. Unless we consider cushy remote tech jobs, but those are an odd case and likely to go away if we assume AI is taking over there.
Part time / hourly work is largely less skilled and much lower paid, and you'll want to take all the hours you can get to be able to afford outright necessities like rent. (Unless you're considering rent as consumption/luxury, which is fair)
It does seem like there's a gap in terms of skilled/highly paid but hourly/part time work.
(Not disagreeing with the rest of your post though)
>I'm just hoping you acknowledge that what people consider optional consumption has changed, which means people consume a lot more.
Of course it's changed. The point is that
1. the necessities haven't changed and have gotten more expensive. People need healthcare, housing, food, and tranport. All up.
2. the modern day expectations means necessities change. We can't walk into a business and shake someone's hand to get a job, so you "need" access to the internet to get a job. Recruiters also expect a consistent phone number to call so good luck skipping a phone line (maybe VOIP can get around this).
These are society's fault as they shifted to pleasing shareholders and outsourcing entire industries (and of course submitted to lobbying). so I don't like this blame being shifted to the individual for daring to consume to survive.
As an aside, every thread I see here has a comment by you lol, that's some good effort but maybe take a break from such strenuous commenting, I say this sincerely as I also used to get into all these back and forths on HN and then realized, much of the time, it's a waste of my own time.
If you think your life is a waste right now, do something with it. That's actually the number one thing people don't expect from being retired, how bored they get. They say in FIRE communities that all the money and time in the world won't help if you don't actually utilize it.
But that's not what they said, they said they want to work less. As the GP post said, they'd still be working a full week.
I do think this is an interesting point. The trend for most of history seems to have been vastly increasing consumption/luxury while work hours somewhat decrease. But have we reached the point where that's not what people want? I'd wager most people in rich developed countries don't particularly want more clothes, gadgets, cars, or fast food. If they can get the current typical middle class share of those things (which to be fair is a big share, and not environmentally sustainable), along with a modest place to live, they (we) mainly want to work less.
Not really a "want" as much as "move where the jobs are". Remote jobs are shakey now and being in the middle of nowhere only worsens your compensation aspects. Being able to live wherever you please is indeed a luxury. The suburb structure already sacrificed the aspect of high CoL for increase commute time to work.
I also do think that dismissing aspects of humanity like family, community and sense of purpose to "luxuries" is an extremely dangerous line of thinking.
Then the hospital takes the house to pay off the rest of the debts. Everybody wins!
There's more to cosume than 50 years ago, but I don't see that trend continuing. We shifted phone bills to cell phone bills and added internet bills and a myriad of subscriptions. But that's really it. everything was "turn one time into subscrition".
I don't see what will fundamentally shift that current consumption for the next 20-30 years. Just more conversion of ownership to renting. In entertainment we're already seeing revolts against this as piracy surges. I don't know how we're going to "consume a lot more" in this case.
But _somebody_ will be living in a 900,000 sq ft apartment and working an hour a week, and the concept of money will be defunct.
And I believe they (and I) are suggesting that this is just a bad faith spin on the market, if you look at actual AI confidence and sentiment and don't ignore it as "ehh just the internet whining". Consumers having less money to spend doesn't mean they are adopting AI en masse, nor are happy about it.
I don't think using the 2025 US government for a moral compass is helping your case either.
>If AI can make things 1000x more efficient
Exhibit A. My observations suggest that consumers are beyond tired of talking about the "what ifs" while they struggle to afford rent or get a job in this economy, right now. All the current gains are for corporate billionaires, why would they think that suddenly changes here and now?
But don’t expect the market to care. Don’t write a blog post whining about your morals, when the market is telling you loud and clear they want X. The market doesn’t give a shit about your idiosyncratic moral stance.
Edit: I’m not arguing that people shouldn’t take a moral stance, even a costly one, but it makes for a really poor sales pitch. In my experience this kind of desperate post will hurt business more than help it. If people don’t want what you’re selling, find something else to sell.
Does it tho? Articles like [1] or [2] seem to be at odd with this interpretation. If it were any different we wouldn't be talking about the "AI bubble" after all.
[1]https://www.pcmag.com/news/microsoft-exec-asks-why-arent-mor...
[2]https://fortune.com/2025/08/18/mit-report-95-percent-generat...
2) if you had read the paper you wouldn’t use it as an example here.
Good faith discussion on what the market feels about LLMs would include Gemini, ChatGPT numbers. Overall market cap of these companies. And not cherry picked misunderstood articles.
I bet a few Pets.com exec were also wondering why people weren't impressed with their website.
"Jeez there so many cynics! It cracks me up when I hear people call AI underwhelming,”
ChatGPT can listen to you in real time, understands multiply languages very well and responds in a very natural way. This is breath taking and not on the horizon just a few years ago.
AI Transcription of Videos is now a really cool and helpful feature in MS Teams.
Segment Anything literaly leapfroged progress on image segmentation.
You can generate any image you want in high quality in just a few seconds.
There are already human beings being shitier in their daily job than a LLM is.
The only thing people don’t give a shit about is your callous and nihilistic dismissal.
This might sound a bit ridiculous but this is what I think a lot of people's real positions on AI are.
And if we look at the players who are the winners in the AI race, do you see anyone particularly good participating?
I could obviously give you examples where LLMs have concrete usecases but that's besides the larger point.
Can you explain why I should not be equally suspicious of gaming, social media, movies, carnivals, travel?
> My position on things like this is that if enough people use a service, I must defer to their judgement that they benefit from it.
Enough people doing something doesn't make that something good or desirable from a societal standpoint. You can find examples of things that go in both directions. You mentioned gaming, social media, movies, carnivals, travel, but you can just as easily ask the same question for gambling or heavy drugs use.
Just saying "I defer to their judgment" is a cop-out.
What became toxic was, arguably, the way in which it was monetized and never really regulated.
(By way of reminder, the question here is about the harms of LLMs specifically to the people using them, so I'm going to ignore e.g. people losing their jobs because their bosses thought an LLM could replace them, possible environmental costs, having the world eaten by superintelligent AI systems that don't need humans any more, use of LLMs to autogenerate terrorist propaganda or scam emails, etc.)
People become like those they spend time with. If a lot of people are spending a lot of time with LLMs, they are going to become more like those LLMs. Maybe only in superficial ways (perhaps they increase their use of the word "delve" or the em-dash or "it's not just X, it's Y" constructions), maybe in deeper ways (perhaps they adapt their _personalities_ to be more like the ones presented by the LLMs). In an individual isolated case, this might be good or bad. When it happens to _everyone_ it makes everyone just a bit more similar to one another, which feels like probably a bad thing.
Much of the point of an LLM as opposed to, say, a search engine is that you're outsourcing not just some of your remembering but some of your thinking. Perhaps widespread use of LLMs will make people mentally lazier. People are already mostly very lazy mentally. This might be bad for society.
People tend to believe what LLMs tell them. LLMs are not perfectly reliable. Again, in isolation this isn't particularly alarming. (People aren't perfectly reliable either. I'm sure everyone reading this believes at least one untrue thing that they believe because some other person said it confidently.) But, again, when large swathes of the population are talking to the same LLMs which make the same mistakes, that could be pretty bad.
Everything in the universe tends to turn into advertising under the influence of present-day market forces. There are less-alarming ways for that to happen with LLMs (maybe they start serving ads in a sidebar or something) and more-alarming ways: maybe companies start paying OpenAI to manipulate their models' output in ways favourable to them. I believe that in many jurisdictions "subliminal advertising" in movies and television is illegal; I believe it's controversial whether it actually works. But I suspect something similar could be done with LLMs: find things associated with your company and train the LLM to mention them more often and with more positive associations. If it can be done, there's a good chance that eventually it will be. Ewww.
All the most capable LLMs run in the cloud. Perhaps people will grow dependent on them, and then the companies providing them -- which are, after all, mostly highly unprofitable right now -- decide to raise their prices massively, to a point at which no one would have chosen to use them so much at the outset. (But at which, having grown dependent on the LLMs, they continue using them.)
I do agree about ads, it will be extremely worrying if ads bias the LLM. I don't agree about the monopoly part, we already have ways of dealing with monopolies.
In general, I think the "AI is the worst thing ever" concerns are overblown. There are some valid reasons to worry, but overall I think LLMs are a massively beneficial technology.
Getting worse at mental arithmetic because of having calculators didn't matter much because calculators are just unambiguously better at arithmetic than we are, and if you always have one handy (which these days you effectively do) then overall you're better at arithmetic than if you were better at doing it in your head but didn't have a calculator. (Though, actually, calculators aren't quite unambiguously better because it takes a little bit of extra time and effort to use one, and if you can't do easy arithmetic in your head then arguably you have lost something.)
If thinking-atrophy due to LLMs turns out to be OK in the same way as arithmetic-atrophy due to calculators has, it will be because LLMs are just unambiguously better at thinking than we are. That seems to me (a) to be a scenario in which those exotic doomy risks become much more salient and (b) like a bigger thing to be losing from our lives than arithmetic. Compare "we will have lost an important part of what it is to be human if we never do arithmetic any more" (absurd) with "we will have lost an important part of what it is to be human if we never think any more" (plausible, at least to me).
[1] I don't see how one can reasonably put less than 50% probability on AI getting to clearly-as-smart-as-humans-overall level in the next decade, or less than 10% probability on AI getting clearly-much-smarter-than-humans-overall soon after if it does, or less than 10% probability on having things much smarter than humans around not causing some sort of catastrophe, all of which means a minimum 0.5% chance of AI-induced catastrophe in the not-too-distant future. And those estimates look to me like they're on the low side.
(Maybe no longer needing the skill of thinking would be fine! Maybe what happens then is that people who like thinking can go on thinking, and people who don't like thinking and were already pretty bad at it outsource their thinking to AI systems that do it better, and everything's OK. But don't you think it sounds like the sort of transformation where if someone described it and said "... what could possibly go wrong?" you would interpret that as sarcasm? It doesn't seem like the sort of future where we could confidently expect that it would all be fine.)
People find a benefit in smoking: a little kick, they feel cool, it’s a break from work, it’s socializing, maybe they feel rebellious.
The point is that people FEEL they benefit. THAT’S the market for many things. Not everything obv, but plenty of things.
I don't disagree, but this also doesn't mean that those things are intrinsically good and then we should all pursuit them because that's what the market wants. And that was what I was pushing against, this idea that since 800M people are using GPT then we should all be ok doing AI work because that's what the market is demanding.
When billions of people watch football, my first instinct is not to decry football as a problem in society. I acknowledge with humility that though I don't enjoy it, there is something to the activity that makes people watch it.
Agree. And that something could be a positive or a negative thing. And I'm not suggesting I know better than them. I'm suggesting that humans are not perfect machines and our brains are very easy to manipulate.
Because there are plenty of examples of things enjoyed by a lot of people who are, as a whole, bad. And they might not be bad for the individuals who are doing them, they might enjoy them, and find pleasure in them. But that doesn't make them desirable and also doesn't mean we should see them as market opportunities.
Drugs and alcohol are the easy example:
> A new report from the World Health Organization (WHO) highlights that 2.6 million deaths per year were attributable to alcohol consumption, accounting for 4.7% of all deaths, and 0.6 million deaths to psychoactive drug use. [...] The report shows an estimated 400 million people lived with alcohol use disorders globally. Of this, 209 million people lived with alcohol dependence. (https://www.who.int/news/item/25-06-2024-over-3-million-annu...)
Can we agree that 3 million people dying as a result of something is not a good outcome? If the reports were saying that 3 million people a year are dying as a result of LLM chats we'd all be freaking out.
–––
> my first instinct is not to decry football as a problem in society.
My first instinct is not to decry nothing as a problem, not as a positive. My first instinct is to give ourselves time to figure out which one of the two it is before jumping in head first. Which is definitely not what's happening with LLMs.
- gaming
- netflix
- television
- social media
- hacker news
- music in general
- carnivals
A priori, all of these are equally suspicious as to whether they provide value or not.
My point is that unless you have reason to suspect, people engaging in consumption through their own agency is in general preferable. You can of course bring counter examples but they are more of caveats against my larger truer point.
And today's adapt or die doesn't sound less fascist than in 1930.
This was you interpreting what the parent post was saying. I'm similarly providing a value judgement that you are doing a maximalist AI dismissal. We are not that different.
Maybe the only difference between us is that I think there is a difference between a description and an interpretation, and you don't :)
In the grand scheme of things, is it even worth mentioning? Probably not! :D :D Why focus on the differences when we can focus on the similarities?
>Ok change my qualifier from interpretation to description if it helps.
I... really don't think AI is what's wrong with you.
If not, for the purpose of paying his bills, your giving a shit is irrelevant. That’s what I mean.
Yes.
I'm not going to be childish and dunk on you for having to update your priors now, but this is exactly the problem with this speaking in aphorisms and glib dismissals. You don't know anyone here, you speak in authoritative tone for others, and redefine what "matters" and what is worthy of conversation as if this is up to you.
> Don’t write a blog post whining about your morals,
why on earth not?
I wrote a blog post about a toilet brush. Can the man write a blog post about his struggle with morality and a changing market?
So is it rational for a web design company to take a moral stance that they won't use JavaScript?
Is there a market for that, with enough clients who want their JavaScript-free work?
Are there really enough companies that morally hate JavaScript enough to hire them, at the expense of their web site's usability and functionality, and their own users who aren't as laser focused on performatively not using JavaScript and letting everyone know about it as they are?
Put differently, is "the market" shaped by the desires of consumers, or by the machinations of producers?
Where are you going to draw the line? Only if it effects you, or maybe we should go back to using coal for everything, so the mineworkers have their old life back? Or maybe follow the Amish guidelines to ban all technology that threatens sense of community?
If you are going to draw a line, you'll probably have to start living in small communities, as AI as a technology is almost impossible to stop. There will be people and companies using it to it's fullest, even if you have laws to ban it, other countries will allow it.
The same could be said of social media for which I think the aggregate bad has been far greater than the aggregate good (though there has certainly been some good sprinkled in there).
I think the same is likely to be true of "AI" in terms of the negative impact it will have on the humanistic side of people and society over the next decade or so.
However like social media before it I don't know how useful it will be to try to avoid it. We'll all be drastically impacted by it through network effects whether we individually choose to participate or not and practically speaking those of us who still need to participate in society and commerce are going to have to deal with it, though that doesn't mean we have to be happy about it.
Not really. Or at least, "just be happy" isn't a good response to someone homeless and jobless.
Yes, absolutely.
Just because it's monopolized by evil people doesn't mean it's inherently bad. In fact, mots people here have seen examples of it done in a good way.
Like this very website we're on, proving the parent's point in fact.
I don't know if HN 2025 has been a good example of "in a good way".
It won't be as hard as you think for HN to slip into the very thing they mock Instagram of today for being.
Yup, story of my life. I have on fact had a dozen different times where I chose not to jump off the cliff with peers. How little I realized back then how rare that quality is.
But you got your answer, feel free to follow the crowd. I already have migrations ready. Again, not my first time.
The goal of AI is NOT to be a tool. It's to replace human labor completely.
This means 100% of economic value goes to capital, instead of labor. Which means anyone that doesn't have sufficient capital to live off the returns just starves to death.
To avoid that outcome requires a complete rethinking of our economic system. And I don't think our institutions are remotely prepared for that, assuming the people runnign them care at all.
AI wouldn't fall into that bucket, it wouldn't be driven entirely by the human at the wheel.
I'm not sold yet whether LLMs are AI, my gut says no and I haven't been convinced yet. We can't lose the distinction between ML and AI though, its extremely important when it comes to risk considerations.
Machine learning isn't about developing anything intelligent at all, its about optimizing well defined problem spaces for algorithms defined by humans. Intelligence is much more self guided and has almost nothing to do with finding the best approximate solution to a specific problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_learning
You are free to define AI differently but don't be surprised if people don't share your unique definition.
How about we start with "commercial LLMs cannot give Legal, Medical, or Financial advice" and go from there? LLMs for those businesses need to be handled by those who can be held accountable (be it the expert or the CEO of that expert).
I'd go so far to try and prevent the obvious and say "LLM's cannot be used to advertise product". but baby steps.
>AI as a technology is almost impossible to stop.
Not really a fan of defeatism speak. Tech isn't as powerful as billionaire want you to pretend it is. It can indeed be regulated, we just need to first use our civic channels instead of fighting amongst ourselves.
Of course, if you are profiting off of AI, I get it. Gotta defend your paycheck.
It will be, of course, but only until all human competition in those fields is eliminated. And after that, all those billions invested must be recouped back by making the prices skyrocket. Didn't we see that with e.g. Uber?
You not liking something on purportedly "moral" grounds doesn't matter if it works better than something else.
According to the logic of your argument, it's perfectly okay to drive a 360t BelAZ 75710 loaded to its full 450t capacity over that bridge just because it's a truck too.
Guess you mmissed the post where lawyers were submitting legal documents generated by LLM's. Or people taking medical advice and ending up with hyperbromium consumptions. Or the lawsuits around LLM's softly encouraging suicide. Or the general AI psychosis being studied.
It's way past "some exceptions" at this point.
Removing all personal responsibility from this equation isn't going to solve anything.
That argument is rather naive, given that millenia of law is meant to regulate and disincentivize behavior. "If people didn't get mad they wouldn't murder!"
We've regulated public messages for decades, and for good reason. I'm not absolving them this time because they want to hide behind a chatbot. They have blood on their hands.
But you may indeed be vying against your best interests. Hope you can take some time to understand where you lie in life and if your society is really benefiting you.
For instance I work for one of the companies that produces some of the most popular LLMs in use today. And I certainly have a stake in them performing well and being useful.
But your line of reasoning would have us believe that Henry Ford is a mass murderer due to the number of vehicular deaths each year, or that the wright brothers bear some responsibility for 9/11. They should have foreseen that people would fly their planes into buildings, of course.
If you want to blame someone for LLMs hurting people, we really need to go all the way back to Alan Turing -- without him these people would still be alive!
Okay, cool. Note that I never asked for your opinion and you decided to pop up in this chain as I was talking to someone else. Go about your day or be curious, but don't butt in then pretend 'well I don't care what you say' when you get a response back.
Nothing you said contradicted my main point. So this isn't really a conversation but simply more useless defense. Good day.
Didn't think that would go so cleanly over your head given you're all the way up there on your high horse of morality.
You don't see how botched law case can't cost someone their life? Let's not wait until more die to reign this in.
>Someone could search on Google just the same and ignore their symptoms.
Yes, and it's not uncommon for websites or search engines to be sued. Millenia of laws exist for this exact purpose, so companies can't deflect bad things back to the people.
If you want the benefits, you accept the consequences. Especially when you fail to put up guard rails.
Opioids work better than anything else at removing the sensation of pain. There are, of course, drawbacks to pumping everyone full of opioids in unlimited doses, and not cracking down on the rampant systemic fraud that enabled this. Opioids in reasonably-prescribed amounts are a godsend to people in serious pain.
However, what I don't like is how little the authors are respected in this process. Everything that the AI generates is based on human labour, but we don't see the authors getting the recognition.
In that sense AI has been the biggest heist that has ever been perpetrated.
Authors still get recognition. If they are decent authors producing original, literary work. But the type of author that fills page five of your local news paper, has not been valued for decades. But that was filler content long before AI showed up. Same for the people that do the subtitles on soap operas. The people that create the commercials that show at 4am on your TV. All fair game for AI.
It's not a heist, just progress. People having to adapt and struggling with that happens with most changes. That doesn't mean the change is bad. Projecting your rage, moralism, etc. onto agents of change is also a constant. People don't like change. The reason we still talk about Luddites is that they overreacted a bit.
People might feel that time is treating them unfairly. But the reality is that sometimes things just change and then some people adapt and others don't. If your party trick is stuff AIs do well (e.g. translating text, coming up with generic copy text, adding some illustrations to articles, etc.), then yes AI is robbing you of your job and there will be a lot less demand for doing these things manually. And maybe you were really good at it even. That really sucks. But it happened. That cat isn't going back in the bag. So, deal with it. There are plenty of other things people can still do.
You are no different than that portrait painter in the 1800s that suddenly saw their market for portraits evaporate because they were being replaced by a few seconds exposure in front of a camera. A lot of very decent art work was created after that. It did not kill art. But it did change what some artists did for a living. In the same way, the gramophone did not kill music. The TV did not kill theater. Etc.
Getting robbed implies a sense of entitlement to something. Did you own what you lost to begin with?
Robbing implies theft. The word heist was used here to imply that some crime is happening. I don't think there is such a crime and disagree with the framing. Which is what this is, and which is also very deliberate. Luddites used a similar kind of framing to justify their actions back in the day. Which is why I'm using it as an analogy. I believe a lot of the anti AI sentiment is rooted in very similar sentiments.
I'm not missing the point but making one. Clearly it's a sensitive topic to a lot of people here.
If they had succeeded in regulation over machines and seeing wealth back into the average factory worker’s hands, of artisans integrated into the workforce instead of shut out, would so much of the bloodshed and mayhem to form unions and regulations have been needed?
Broadly, it seems to me that most technological change could use some consideration of people
See Studio Ghibli's art style being ripped off, Disney suing Midjourney, etc
Regardless of whether you think IP laws should prevent LLMs from training on works under copyright, I hardly think the situation is beyond dispute. Whether copyright itself should even exist is something many dispute.
People claiming that backpropagation "steals" your material don't understand math or copyright.
You can hate generative tools all you want -- opinions are free -- but you're fundamentally wrong about the legality or morality at play.
>the type of business that's going to be hit hard by AI [...] will be the ones that integrate AI into their business the most
There. Fixed!
If every AI lab were to go bust tomorrow, we could still hire expensive GPU servers (there would suddenly be a glut of those!) and use them to run those open weight models and continue as we do today.
Sure, the models wouldn't ever get any better in the future - but existing teams that rely on them would be able to keep on working with surprisingly little disruption.
Prompting isn't a skill, and praying that the next prompt finally spits out something decent is not a business strategy.
well you just describing an chatgpt is, one of the most fastest growing user acquisition user base in history
as much as I agree with your statement but the real world doesn't respect that
By selling a dollar of compute for 90 cents.
We've been here before, it doesn't end like you think it does.
No thanks, I'm good.
This type of business isn’t going to be hit hard by AI; this type of business owner is going to be hit hard by AI.
I am an AI skeptic and until the hype is supplanted by actual tangible value I will prefer products that don't cram AI everywhere it doesn't belong.
Recently I had to learn SPARQL. What I did is I created an MCP server to connect it to a graph database with SPARQL support, and then I asked the AI: "Can you teach me how to do this? How would I do this in SQL? How would I do it with SPARQL?" And then it would show me.
With examples of how to use something, it really helps that you can ask questions about what you want to know at that moment, instead of just following a static tutorial.
I still wondering why I'm not doing my banking in Bitcoins. My blockchain database was replaced by postgres.
So some tech can just be hypeware. The OP has a legitimate standpoint given some technologies track record.
And the doctors are still out on the affects of social media on children or why are some countries banning social media for children?
Not everything that comes out of Silicon Valley is automatically good.
same like StackOverflow down today and seems like not everyone cares anymore, back then it would totally cause breakdown because SO is vital
Then there's an oversupply of programmers, salaries will crash, and lots of people will have to switch careers. It's happened before.
"Always", in the same way that five years ago we'd "never" have an AI that can do a code review.
Don't get me wrong: I've watched a decade of promises that "self driving cars are coming real soon now honest", latest news about Tesla's is that it can't cope with leaves; I certainly *hope* that a decade from now will still be having much the same conversation about AI taking senior programmer jobs, but "always" is a long time.
regulation still very much a thing
Musk's claims about what Tesla's would be able to do wasn't limited to just "a few locations" it was "complete autonomy" and "you'll be able to summon your car from across the country"… by 2018.
And yet, 2025, leaves: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46095867
Like everything else they do, it's amazing how far you can get even if you're incredibly lazy and let it do everything itself, though of course that's a bad idea because it's got all the skill and quality of result you'd expect if I said "endless hoarde of fresh grads unwilling to say 'no' except on ethical grounds".
And the LLMs can use the static analysis tools.
I did not say that.
That it can *also* use tools to help, doesn't mean it can *only* get there by using tools.
They can *also* just do a code review themselves.
As in, I cloned a repo of some of my old manually-written code, cd'd into it, ran `claude`, and gave it the prompt "code review" (or something close to that), and it told me a whole bunch of things wrong with it, in natural language, even though I didn't have the relevant static analysis tools for those languages installed.
Well sure, but was the result any better than that of installing and running the tools? If the AI can provide better or at least different (but accurate!) PR feedback from conventional tools, that's interesting. If it's just offering the same thing (which is not really "code review" as I'd define it, even if it is something that code reviewers in some contexts spend some of their time on) through a different interface, that's much less interesting.
Someone with a name, an employment contract, and accountability is needed to sign off on decisions. Tools can be infinitely smart, but they cannot be responsible, so AI will shift how developers work, not whether they are needed.
If AI becomes powerful enough to generate entire systems, the person supervising and validating those systems is, functionally, a developer — because they must understand the technical details well enough to take responsibility for them.
Titles can shift, but the role dont disappear. Someone with deep technical judgment will still be required to translate intent into implementation and to sign off on the risks. You can call that person "developer", "AI engineer" or something else, but the core responsibility remains technical. PMs and QA do not fill that gap.
LLMs can already do that.
What they can't do is be legally responsible, which is a different thing.
> Responsibility is about being able to judge whether the system is correct, safe, maintainable, and aligned with real-world constraints.
Legal responsibility and technical responsibility are not always the same thing; technical responsibility is absolutely in the domain of PM and QA, legal responsibility ultimately stops with either a certified engineer (which software engineering famously isn't), the C-suite, the public liability insurance company, or the shareholders depending on specifics.
Ownership requires legal personhood, which isn't the same thing as philosophical personhood, which is why corporations themselves can be legal owners.
They are powerful tools but they are not engineers.
And its not about legal responsibility at all. Developers dont go to jail for mistakes, but they are responsible within the engineering hierarchy. A pilot is not legally liable for Boeing's corporate decisions, and the plane can mostly fly on the autopilot, but you still need a pilot in the cockpit.
AI cannot replace the human whose technical judgment is required to supervise, validate, and interpret AI-generated systems.
It's happened before and there's no way we could have learned from that and improved things. It has to be just life changing, life ruining, career crippling. Absolutely no other way for a society to function than this.
You and I both know we're probably headed for revolutionary times.
An tech employee posted he looked for job for 6 months, found none and has joined a fast food shop flipping burgers.
That turned tech workers switching to "flipping burgers" into a meme.
I feel like there are a lot of people in school or recently graduated though that had FNG dreams and never considered an alternative. This is going to be very difficult for them. I now feel, especially as tech has gone truly borderless with remote work, that this downturn is now way worse than the .com bust. It has just dragged on for years now, with no real end in sight.
covid overhiring + AI usage = massive layoff we ever see in decades
There are still plenty of tech jobs these days, just less than there were during covid, but tech itself is still in a massive expansionary cycle. We'll see how the AI bubble lasts, and what the fallout of it bursting will be.
The key point is that the going is still exceptionally good. The posts talking about experienced programmers having to flip burgers in the early 2000s is not an exaggeration.
History always repeats itself in the tech industry. The hype cycle for LLMs will probably peak within the next few years. (LLMs are legitimately useful for many things but some of the company valuations and employee compensation packages are totally irrational.)
There were more problems. And that's from the point of view of somebody coming from Google to find questions that already existed. Interacting there was another entire can of worms.
Stack Overflow’s moderation is overbearing and all, but that’s nowhere near at the same level as Expert Exchange’s baiting and switching
SO was never that bad, even with all their moderation policies, they had no paywalls.
When you search programming-related questions, what sites do you normally read? For me, it is hard to avoid SO because it appears in so many top results from Google. And I swear that Google AI just regugitates most of SO these days for simple questions.
Instead of running a google query or searching in Stackoverflow you just need a chatGPT, Claude or your Ai of choice open in a browser. Copy and paste.
But the killer feature of an LLM is that it can synthesize something based on my exact ask, and does a great job of creating a PoC to prove something, and it's cheap from time investment point of view.
And it doesn't downvote something as off-topic, or try to use my question as a teaching exercise and tell me I'm doing it wrong, even if I am ;)
Running a services business has always been about being able to identify trends and adapt to market demand. Every small business I know has been adapting to trends or trying to stay ahead of them from the start, from retail to product to service businesses.
The fact is, a lot of new business is getting done in this field, with or without them. If they want to take the "high road", so be it, but they should be prepared to accepts the consequences of worse revenues.
Without knowing the future I cannot answer.
You might as well work on product marketing for ai because that is where the client dollars are allocated.
If it's hype at least you stayed afloat. If it's not maybe u find a new angle if you can survive long enough? Just survive and wait for things to shake out.
yes [0]
I believe that they are bringing up a moral argument. Which I'm sympathetic too, having quit a job before because I found that my personal morals didn't align with the company, and the cognitive dissonance to continue working there was weighing heavily on me. The money wasn't worth the mental fight every day.
So, yes, in some cases it is better to be "right" and be forced out of business than "wrong" and remain in business. But you have to look beyond just revenue numbers. And different people will have different ideas of "right" and "wrong", obviously.
Agreed that you cannot be in a toxic situation and not have it affect you -- so if THAT is the case -- by all means exit asap.
If it's perceived ethical conflict the only one you need to worry about is the golden rule -- and I do not mean 'he who has the gold makes the rules' I mean the real one. If that conflicts with what you are doing then also probably make an exit -- but many do not care trust me... They would take everything from you and feel justified as long as they are told (just told) it's the right thing. They never ask themselves. They do not really think for themselves. This is most people. Sadly.
Have they done more harm than, say, Meta?
Yeah, that's why I took a guess at what they were trying to say.
>Is that supposed to intrinsically represent "immorality"?
What? The fact that they linked to Wikipedia, or specifically Raytheon?
Wikipedia does not intrinsically represent immorality, no. But missile manufacturing is a pretty typical example, if not the typical example, of a job that conflicts with morals.
>Have they done more harm than, say, Meta?
Who? Raytheon? The point I'm making has nothing to do with who sucks more between Meta and Raytheon.
But if someone wants to make some blanket judgement, I am asking for a little more effort. For example, I wonder if they would think the same as a Ukrainian under the protection of Patriot missiles? (also produced by Raytheon)
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/middle-east/2018/04/27/ameri...
I know the part number of every airplane part I have ever designed by heart, and I would be horrified to see those part numbers in the news as evidence of a mass murder.
So, what is your moral justification for defending one of the world’s largest and despised weapons manufacturers? Are you paid to do it or is it just pro-bono work?
If you think Raytheon is the apex evil corporation you are very mistaken. There is hardly any separation between mega corps and state above a certain level. The same people are in majority control of IBM, Procter & Gamble, Nike, and Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc, etc.
Stop consuming marketing materials as gospel.
What you see as this or that atrocity on CNN or whatever that is produced *propaganda*, made for you, and you are swallowing it blindly without thinking.
Also the responsibility is of course down to individuals and their actions-- whether you know their names or not. Objects do not go to war on their own.
I've also worked in aerospace and aviation software but that doesn't preclude me from thinking clearly about whether I'm responsible for this or that thing on the news involving planes -- you might want to stop consuming that.
Most if not all aerospace companies also produce military aircraft, right? Or is your reasoning that if your particular plane doesn't actually fire the bullets, then there's no moral dilemma?
I am in a different camp altogether on AI, though, and would happily continue to do business with it. I genuinely do not see the difference between it and the computer in general. I could even argue it's the same as the printing press.
What exactly is the moral dilemma with AI? We are all reading this message on devices built off of far more ethically questionable operations. that's not to say two things cant both be bad, but it just looks to me like people are using the moral argument as a means to avoid learning something new while being able to virtue signal how ethical they are about it, while at the same time they refuse to sacrifice things they are already accustomed to for ethical reasons when they learn more about it. It just all seems rather convenient.
the main issue I see talked about with it is in unethical model training, but let me know of others. Personally, I think you can separate the process from the product. A product isnt unethical just because unethical processes were used to create it. The creator/perpetrator of the unethical process should be held accountable and all benefits taken back as to kill any perceived incentive to perform the actions, but once the damage is done why let it happen in vain? For example, should we let people die rather than use medical knowledge gained unethically?
Maybe we should be targeting these AI companies if they are unethical and stop them from training any new models using the same unethical practices, hold them accountable for their actions, and distribute the intellectual property and profits gained from existing models to the public, but models that are already trained can actually be used for good and I personally see it as unethical not to.
Sorry for the ramble, but it is a very interesting topic that should probably have as much discussion around it as we can get
Yes, but since you are out of business you no longer have an opportunity to fix that situation or adapt it to your morals. It's final.
Turning the page is a valid choice though. Sometimes a clean slate is what you need.
> Being out of business shouldn't be a death sentence, and if it is then maybe we are overlooking something more significant.
Fair point! It feels like a death sentence when you put so much into it though -- a part of you IS dying. It's a natural reflex to revolt at the thought.
> For example, should we let people die rather than use medical knowledge gained unethically?
Depends if you are doing it 'for their own good' or not.
Also the ends do not justify the means in the world of morals we are discussing -- that is pragmatism / utilitarianism and belongs to the world of the material not the ideal.
Finally - Who determines what is ethical? beyond the 'golden rule'? This is the most important factor. I'm not implying ethics are ALL relative, but beyond the basics they are, and who determines that is more important than the context or the particulars.
You should tell that to all the failed businesses Jobs had or was ousted out of. Hell, Trump hasn't really had a single successful business in his life.
Nothing is final until you draw your last breath.
>Who determines what is ethical? beyond the 'golden rule'?
To be frank, you're probably not the audience being appealed to in this post if you have to suggest "ethics can be relative". This is clearly a group of craftsmen offering their hands and knowledge. There are entire organizations who have guidelines if you need some legalese sense of what "ethical" is here.
As a craftsman who has failed and started over believe me I have lived it.
Ethics course != ethical Corporate ethics ~= slavery with a smile
Lawyers will all tell you how ethical they are but I do not take them seriously.
Lots of room for nuance here, but generally Id say its more pragmatic to pivot your business to one that aligns with your morals and is still feasible, rather than convince yourself youre going to influence something you have no control over while compromising on your values. i am going to emphasize the relevance of something being an actual moral or ethical dilemma vs something being a very deep personal preference or matter of identity/personal branding.
>Fair point! It feels like a death sentence when you put so much into it though -- a part of you IS dying. It's a natural reflex to revolt at the thought.
I agree, it is a real loss and I don't mean for it to be treated lightly but if we are talking about morals and potentially feeling forced to compromise them in order to survive, we should acknowledge it's not really a survival situation.
>Depends if you are doing it 'for their own good' or not.
what do you mean by this?
I am not posing a hypothetical. modern medicine has plenty of contributions to it from unethical sources. Should that information be stripped from medical textbooks and threaten to take licenses away from doctors who use it to inform their decision until we find an ethical way to relearn it? Knowing this would likely allow for large amounts of suffering to go untreated that could have otherwise been treated? I am sincerely trying not to make this sound like a loaded question
also, this is not saying the means are justified. I want to reiterate my point of explicitly not justifying the means and saying the actors involved in the means should be held maximally accountable.
I would think from your stance on the first bullet point you would agree here - as by removing the product from the process you are able to adapt it to your morals.
>Finally - Who determines what is ethical?
I agree that philosophically speaking all ethics are relative, and I was intending to make my point from the perspective of navigating the issues as in individual not as a collective making rules to enforce on others. So you. you determine what is ethical to you
However, there are a lot of systems already in place for determining what is deemed ethical behavior in areas where most everyone agrees some level of ethics is required. This is usually done through consensus and committees with people who are experts in ethics and experts in the relevant field its being applied to.
AI is new and this oversight does not exist yet, and it is imperative that we all participate in the conversation because we are all setting the tone for how this stuff will be handled. Every org may do it differently, and then whatever happens to be common practice will be written down as the guidelines
Because there are no great ways to leverage the damage without perpetuating it. Who do you think pays for the hosting of these models? And what do you mean by distribute the IP and profits to the public? If this process will be facilitated by government, I don’t have faith they’ll be able to allocate capital well enough to keep the current operation sustainable.
Is moving a bill around to have someone else pay for the hosting an issue? Is hosting an already built model itself an ethical concern?
IP is a form of thought control... Is that ethical?
Who holds who accountable? Is the one doing the holding accountable?
Like Stalin said -- it's not the votes that count but who counts the votes.
Bottom line is you are always required to accept someone's version of ethical -- whether it's obvious or not.
Surprisingly enough, I dont think there is much in the accountability front that you can organize. It's like the final layer of accountability. You can only act in a way defendable by your genuine morals and the consequences are what they are. Maybe you can be somewhat negotiable and adjust and push your morals to their limit in order to limit the negative effects to yourself, but if its a true moral i think you shouldnt fully break it. I think that level of accountability with yourself is necessary to have peace of mind. Everything else is out of your control, including whos ethics the consequences are bound to.
If you were the same as you are now and you were placed into what you believe to be a genuinely evil society, and you have to severely go against your morals to fit in and avoid negative consequence, are you going to do that?
That's very similar to other unethical processes(for example child labour), and we see that government is often either too slow to move or just not interested, and that's why people try to influence the market by changing what they buy.
It's similar for AI, some people don't use it so that they don't pay the creators (in money or in personal data) to train the next model, and at the same time signal to the companies that they wouldn't be future customers of the next model.
(I'm not necessarely in the group of people avoiding to use AI, but I can see their point)
The main difference is that for those devices, the people negatively affected by operations are far away in another country, and we're already conditioned to accept their exploitation as "that's just how the world works" or "they're better off that way". With AI, the people affected - those whose work was used to train, and those who lose jobs because of it - are much closer. For software engineers in particular, these are often colleagues and friends.
as opposed to the ethical concerns hitting home and waking them up as a call to action and even though it's a little unfortunate that they didnt care until it effected them, we could argue it is still a point of ethics because they are consistently applying the ethical standpoint unilaterally across their life now that theyve had a change of heart.
Depends. Is it better to be "wrong" and burn all your goodwill for any future endeavors? Maybe, but I don't think the answer is clear cut for everyone.
I also don't fully agree with us being the "minority". The issue is that the majority of investors are simply not investing anymore. Those remaining are playing high stakes roulette until the casino burns down.
Everyone and everything has a website and an app already. Is the market becoming saturated?
The market is nowhere close to being saturated.
What are examples of these "new applications" that are needed every day? Do consumers really want them? Or are software and other companies just creating them because it benefits those companies?
I've worked (still do!) for engineering services companies. Other businesses pay us to build systems for them to either use in-house or resell downstream. I have to assume that if they're paying for it, they see profit potential.
> Landing projects for Set Studio has been extremely difficult, especially as we won’t work on product marketing for AI stuff, from a moral standpoint, but the vast majority of enquiries have been for exactly that
The market is speaking. Long-term you’ll find out who’s wrong, but the market can usually stay irrational for much longer than you can stay in business.
I think everyone in the programming education business is feeling the struggle right now. In my opinion this business died 2 years ago – https://swizec.com/blog/the-programming-tutorial-seo-industr...