This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I don't think "large scale layoffs" is necessarily the only future here. I'll certainly admit it's possible, but historically automation hasn't always gone that way. A century ago, we had lots of accountants, and most of their time was spent manually balancing arithmetic, maybe with a mechanical adding machine. Along came the personal computer (earlier for large businesses with mainframes), and most of that work can be automated pretty trivially. Yet there are more accountants today than there were a century ago. What changed is that they're not doing arithmetic, and the complexity of what they do has grown substantially. For all the complaints about the growth of the tax code (and frequent related stunts by politicians), we are able to handle that complexity because we can offload the line-by-line balancing to software. Some of that complexity is probably wasteful, but some of it is also better auditing and accountability, or targeted governmental incentives — some, again, is probably wasteful, but some seems reasonable.
I don't have quite as coherent an argument (still a work in progress), but it's also the case that "recession caused by mass AI-driven unemployment" is actually a self-own by corporate AI overlords in limiting their upside. If you replaced half of human workers tomorrow at a cost savings, any not-truly-essential business is going to lose customers who can't afford their wares: tech companies fit pretty high on Maslow's pyramid, and most of the base ones are long-commodified — at one point, most of us were farmers, then along came the tractor. Nobody in the West is starving because they can't get a farmhand job. The cratering of farm employment is, in fact, why I get to work an office job, rather than out in the fields somewhere, and I'm not sure I'm worse-off for it.
But that latter part is, again, a half-formed argument.
Of the job categories listed in the 1960 US Census, supposedly only one has disappeared completely: elevator operator.
Nevertheless, I think the complexity argument might fail for accountants. Complexity actually favors AI. They are good at it.
When you talk to rich people, everyone is looking for an accountant. They all think that their accountant is bad and want a better one. I've only had bad ones personally. Now I just do things myself because I don't want to deal with errors. AI has been a godsend. I think it's likely that AI will do my taxes in April 2028.
But there is a silver lining for accountants: knowing which rules to bend or break. If it treats taxes like it treats code, AI will happily fill out a 500 page form so you can pay $0.04 to the state of Arkansas for some K1 you got from an oil services company. The accountant knows to throw it in the trash. They can tell you to ignore that letter from IRS because it doesn't get serious until the nth notice. They know how to ignore the rules that contradict the other rules. They know that certain tax dodges are okay because all their clients do them and never get audited.
I think it's somewhat similar to driving. The system only works because people know when to break the rules. Will AI break the rules? If so, will they be liable for that? Humans might stay in the loop just so they can break/bend the rules.
Hilariously I've been in elevators with an operator.
I'm pretty sure another silver lining for accountants is that "my freakin' AI did it wrong" is probably not an excuse that the IRS will accept. They will accept "my accountant did it wrong."
Definitely. It’s the same problem that self driving has where every Tesla that crashes with FSD is nationwide news even though it’s 10x (or more?) safer than average drivers.
I think it's worse. In the case I am familiar with, (sample size of two) as far as I can tell, when a guy did something on his own, he did okay. When he tried to use AI to do about the same thing, SNAP!
So either the AI screwed up big time 50% of the time, or 100% of the time. Either way, not great, and seems worse "per task" than self-driving cars.
Weird. This is so far from my experience that I wonder what you guys are even doing? Like, you only tried AI twice?
If you’re a senior dev, and AI is not banned by your org, and you’re not personally using AI, that seems very inefficient.
Oh no, I've tried AI lots more than twice. Definitely witnessed more than one hallucination.
I'm not in software. The mistake I'm talking about wasn't made by me, so I don't have any insight into how it was made or how often the user was using it, or what model.
To give you the sort of idea of what happened without doxxing myself, imagine someone turned in their PhD dissertation and it (or parts of it) turned out to be AI written, and the AI had made stuff up.
Was he using a "cutting edge" model? No idea. I've had Opus goof stuff up for me before, so I don't necessarily trust even the higher-end models not to make mistakes from time to time.
Fair enough. I trust your lived experience. But listen to software devs when they say that AI works now, it hallucinates a lot less, and it has gotten remarkably better in the last 12 months, even the last 6 months. I use it every day. It is does not hallucinate much.
Harnesses such as Claude Code and Codex have changed the game.
I think that AI has been gravitating towards software development (perhaps to the detriment of other skills), in part because software development helps develop AI! But software development is fairly validation oriented – code runs or it doesn't. Someone who is lazy enough to have an AI write text with their name on it may also be too lazy to validate that text, or even too lazy to have another AI fact-check it.
You can say "yeah they are a poor user" and fair enough, but people will say things like "AIs have PhD level intelligence" or "AIs can act as a smart research intern" and then (in my experience) from time to time they go and make stuff up. Certainly lazy PhDs and research interns do this, all the time, but I don't think that demonstrates intelligence.
I'm not an AI-denier, I use it relatively consistently and I like it for research – but a lot of that is because Google is bad now (and their AI overview is atrocious, I've seen it present conflicting information), and you can use AI to get you links that you can check with your own eyeballs, and you can give it specific prompts that help mitigate other bad tendencies. But the fact that you have to do these things means that you cannot necessarily just expect AI cruising around on its own recognizance (or in the hands of someone who is not intelligent and/or used to using AI) to operate at that high level.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link