▲ 1042 ▼ Bernie Sanders says if AI is coming for workers, it should bring a four-day workweek with it (fortune.com) submitted 4 weeks ago by Mustachius_Grumpius to c/technology@lemmy.world 202 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] Feyd@programming.dev 3 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (11 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 4 weeks ago (10 children) What were they doing before? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [+] Feyd@programming.dev 3 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (9 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 4 weeks ago* (8 children) Imo, they're just doing the same shit slightly faster. Whether or not it has value is separate and mostly in the eye of the beholder. Slop is a thought-terminating buzzword, you're relying on it too heavily to make your point and it undermines you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [+] Feyd@programming.dev 3 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (7 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 weeks ago (6 children) These are just assertions. If they were true, nobody would be using them. Millions upon millions of people are using them every day? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 4 weeks ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (5 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 weeks ago (4 children) Widespread use alone isn't conclusive proof of productivity, granted. But your alternative seems to require assuming thousands of companies are all independently making the same stupid decision, spending real money on tools that provide no value, while you've correctly identified what they've all somehow missed. Corporate adoption can be wasteful, and some uses absolutely are poor. But that doesn't establish that LLMs don't improve productivity. At most, it shows the gains are task-dependent and easy to misuse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 4 weeks ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 weeks ago* (2 children) Then we've narrowed the disagreement quite a bit. You accept that LLMs can be used effectively, you're just asserting that they're misused far more often than not. But both that and “anyone with eyes can see thousands of companies are wasting their money” are still just restating your conclusion baselessly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 4 weeks ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 weeks ago Arguing against something I didn’t say. I never claimed companies “by default make good decisions.” I said thousands of independent companies and individuals repeatedly choosing to pay for a tool is reasonable evidence that it provides some value to them. That’s not some corporate infallibility, it’s revealed preference. Your personal observations are anecdotes. If your claim is that LLMs are far more often harmful than useful, support it? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 4 weeks ago (10 children) What were they doing before? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [+] Feyd@programming.dev 3 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (9 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 4 weeks ago* (8 children) Imo, they're just doing the same shit slightly faster. Whether or not it has value is separate and mostly in the eye of the beholder. Slop is a thought-terminating buzzword, you're relying on it too heavily to make your point and it undermines you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [+] Feyd@programming.dev 3 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (7 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 weeks ago (6 children) These are just assertions. If they were true, nobody would be using them. Millions upon millions of people are using them every day? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 4 weeks ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (5 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 weeks ago (4 children) Widespread use alone isn't conclusive proof of productivity, granted. But your alternative seems to require assuming thousands of companies are all independently making the same stupid decision, spending real money on tools that provide no value, while you've correctly identified what they've all somehow missed. Corporate adoption can be wasteful, and some uses absolutely are poor. But that doesn't establish that LLMs don't improve productivity. At most, it shows the gains are task-dependent and easy to misuse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 4 weeks ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 weeks ago* (2 children) Then we've narrowed the disagreement quite a bit. You accept that LLMs can be used effectively, you're just asserting that they're misused far more often than not. But both that and “anyone with eyes can see thousands of companies are wasting their money” are still just restating your conclusion baselessly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 4 weeks ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 weeks ago Arguing against something I didn’t say. I never claimed companies “by default make good decisions.” I said thousands of independent companies and individuals repeatedly choosing to pay for a tool is reasonable evidence that it provides some value to them. That’s not some corporate infallibility, it’s revealed preference. Your personal observations are anecdotes. If your claim is that LLMs are far more often harmful than useful, support it? permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Feyd@programming.dev 3 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (9 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 4 weeks ago* (8 children) Imo, they're just doing the same shit slightly faster. Whether or not it has value is separate and mostly in the eye of the beholder. Slop is a thought-terminating buzzword, you're relying on it too heavily to make your point and it undermines you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [+] Feyd@programming.dev 3 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (7 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 weeks ago (6 children) These are just assertions. If they were true, nobody would be using them. Millions upon millions of people are using them every day? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 4 weeks ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (5 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 weeks ago (4 children) Widespread use alone isn't conclusive proof of productivity, granted. But your alternative seems to require assuming thousands of companies are all independently making the same stupid decision, spending real money on tools that provide no value, while you've correctly identified what they've all somehow missed. Corporate adoption can be wasteful, and some uses absolutely are poor. But that doesn't establish that LLMs don't improve productivity. At most, it shows the gains are task-dependent and easy to misuse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 4 weeks ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 weeks ago* (2 children) Then we've narrowed the disagreement quite a bit. You accept that LLMs can be used effectively, you're just asserting that they're misused far more often than not. But both that and “anyone with eyes can see thousands of companies are wasting their money” are still just restating your conclusion baselessly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 4 weeks ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 weeks ago Arguing against something I didn’t say. I never claimed companies “by default make good decisions.” I said thousands of independent companies and individuals repeatedly choosing to pay for a tool is reasonable evidence that it provides some value to them. That’s not some corporate infallibility, it’s revealed preference. Your personal observations are anecdotes. If your claim is that LLMs are far more often harmful than useful, support it? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 4 weeks ago* (8 children) Imo, they're just doing the same shit slightly faster. Whether or not it has value is separate and mostly in the eye of the beholder. Slop is a thought-terminating buzzword, you're relying on it too heavily to make your point and it undermines you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [+] Feyd@programming.dev 3 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (7 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 weeks ago (6 children) These are just assertions. If they were true, nobody would be using them. Millions upon millions of people are using them every day? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 4 weeks ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (5 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 weeks ago (4 children) Widespread use alone isn't conclusive proof of productivity, granted. But your alternative seems to require assuming thousands of companies are all independently making the same stupid decision, spending real money on tools that provide no value, while you've correctly identified what they've all somehow missed. Corporate adoption can be wasteful, and some uses absolutely are poor. But that doesn't establish that LLMs don't improve productivity. At most, it shows the gains are task-dependent and easy to misuse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 4 weeks ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 weeks ago* (2 children) Then we've narrowed the disagreement quite a bit. You accept that LLMs can be used effectively, you're just asserting that they're misused far more often than not. But both that and “anyone with eyes can see thousands of companies are wasting their money” are still just restating your conclusion baselessly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 4 weeks ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 weeks ago Arguing against something I didn’t say. I never claimed companies “by default make good decisions.” I said thousands of independent companies and individuals repeatedly choosing to pay for a tool is reasonable evidence that it provides some value to them. That’s not some corporate infallibility, it’s revealed preference. Your personal observations are anecdotes. If your claim is that LLMs are far more often harmful than useful, support it? permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Feyd@programming.dev 3 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (7 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 weeks ago (6 children) These are just assertions. If they were true, nobody would be using them. Millions upon millions of people are using them every day? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 4 weeks ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (5 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 weeks ago (4 children) Widespread use alone isn't conclusive proof of productivity, granted. But your alternative seems to require assuming thousands of companies are all independently making the same stupid decision, spending real money on tools that provide no value, while you've correctly identified what they've all somehow missed. Corporate adoption can be wasteful, and some uses absolutely are poor. But that doesn't establish that LLMs don't improve productivity. At most, it shows the gains are task-dependent and easy to misuse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 4 weeks ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 weeks ago* (2 children) Then we've narrowed the disagreement quite a bit. You accept that LLMs can be used effectively, you're just asserting that they're misused far more often than not. But both that and “anyone with eyes can see thousands of companies are wasting their money” are still just restating your conclusion baselessly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 4 weeks ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 weeks ago Arguing against something I didn’t say. I never claimed companies “by default make good decisions.” I said thousands of independent companies and individuals repeatedly choosing to pay for a tool is reasonable evidence that it provides some value to them. That’s not some corporate infallibility, it’s revealed preference. Your personal observations are anecdotes. If your claim is that LLMs are far more often harmful than useful, support it? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 weeks ago (6 children) These are just assertions. If they were true, nobody would be using them. Millions upon millions of people are using them every day? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 4 weeks ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (5 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 weeks ago (4 children) Widespread use alone isn't conclusive proof of productivity, granted. But your alternative seems to require assuming thousands of companies are all independently making the same stupid decision, spending real money on tools that provide no value, while you've correctly identified what they've all somehow missed. Corporate adoption can be wasteful, and some uses absolutely are poor. But that doesn't establish that LLMs don't improve productivity. At most, it shows the gains are task-dependent and easy to misuse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 4 weeks ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 weeks ago* (2 children) Then we've narrowed the disagreement quite a bit. You accept that LLMs can be used effectively, you're just asserting that they're misused far more often than not. But both that and “anyone with eyes can see thousands of companies are wasting their money” are still just restating your conclusion baselessly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 4 weeks ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 weeks ago Arguing against something I didn’t say. I never claimed companies “by default make good decisions.” I said thousands of independent companies and individuals repeatedly choosing to pay for a tool is reasonable evidence that it provides some value to them. That’s not some corporate infallibility, it’s revealed preference. Your personal observations are anecdotes. If your claim is that LLMs are far more often harmful than useful, support it? permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 4 weeks ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (5 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 weeks ago (4 children) Widespread use alone isn't conclusive proof of productivity, granted. But your alternative seems to require assuming thousands of companies are all independently making the same stupid decision, spending real money on tools that provide no value, while you've correctly identified what they've all somehow missed. Corporate adoption can be wasteful, and some uses absolutely are poor. But that doesn't establish that LLMs don't improve productivity. At most, it shows the gains are task-dependent and easy to misuse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 4 weeks ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 weeks ago* (2 children) Then we've narrowed the disagreement quite a bit. You accept that LLMs can be used effectively, you're just asserting that they're misused far more often than not. But both that and “anyone with eyes can see thousands of companies are wasting their money” are still just restating your conclusion baselessly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 4 weeks ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 weeks ago Arguing against something I didn’t say. I never claimed companies “by default make good decisions.” I said thousands of independent companies and individuals repeatedly choosing to pay for a tool is reasonable evidence that it provides some value to them. That’s not some corporate infallibility, it’s revealed preference. Your personal observations are anecdotes. If your claim is that LLMs are far more often harmful than useful, support it? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 weeks ago (4 children) Widespread use alone isn't conclusive proof of productivity, granted. But your alternative seems to require assuming thousands of companies are all independently making the same stupid decision, spending real money on tools that provide no value, while you've correctly identified what they've all somehow missed. Corporate adoption can be wasteful, and some uses absolutely are poor. But that doesn't establish that LLMs don't improve productivity. At most, it shows the gains are task-dependent and easy to misuse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 4 weeks ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 weeks ago* (2 children) Then we've narrowed the disagreement quite a bit. You accept that LLMs can be used effectively, you're just asserting that they're misused far more often than not. But both that and “anyone with eyes can see thousands of companies are wasting their money” are still just restating your conclusion baselessly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 4 weeks ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 weeks ago Arguing against something I didn’t say. I never claimed companies “by default make good decisions.” I said thousands of independent companies and individuals repeatedly choosing to pay for a tool is reasonable evidence that it provides some value to them. That’s not some corporate infallibility, it’s revealed preference. Your personal observations are anecdotes. If your claim is that LLMs are far more often harmful than useful, support it? permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 4 weeks ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 weeks ago* (2 children) Then we've narrowed the disagreement quite a bit. You accept that LLMs can be used effectively, you're just asserting that they're misused far more often than not. But both that and “anyone with eyes can see thousands of companies are wasting their money” are still just restating your conclusion baselessly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 4 weeks ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 weeks ago Arguing against something I didn’t say. I never claimed companies “by default make good decisions.” I said thousands of independent companies and individuals repeatedly choosing to pay for a tool is reasonable evidence that it provides some value to them. That’s not some corporate infallibility, it’s revealed preference. Your personal observations are anecdotes. If your claim is that LLMs are far more often harmful than useful, support it? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 weeks ago* (2 children) Then we've narrowed the disagreement quite a bit. You accept that LLMs can be used effectively, you're just asserting that they're misused far more often than not. But both that and “anyone with eyes can see thousands of companies are wasting their money” are still just restating your conclusion baselessly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 4 weeks ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 weeks ago Arguing against something I didn’t say. I never claimed companies “by default make good decisions.” I said thousands of independent companies and individuals repeatedly choosing to pay for a tool is reasonable evidence that it provides some value to them. That’s not some corporate infallibility, it’s revealed preference. Your personal observations are anecdotes. If your claim is that LLMs are far more often harmful than useful, support it? permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Feyd@programming.dev 1 point 4 weeks ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 weeks ago Arguing against something I didn’t say. I never claimed companies “by default make good decisions.” I said thousands of independent companies and individuals repeatedly choosing to pay for a tool is reasonable evidence that it provides some value to them. That’s not some corporate infallibility, it’s revealed preference. Your personal observations are anecdotes. If your claim is that LLMs are far more often harmful than useful, support it? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 weeks ago Arguing against something I didn’t say. I never claimed companies “by default make good decisions.” I said thousands of independent companies and individuals repeatedly choosing to pay for a tool is reasonable evidence that it provides some value to them. That’s not some corporate infallibility, it’s revealed preference. Your personal observations are anecdotes. If your claim is that LLMs are far more often harmful than useful, support it? permalink fedilink source parent