This is very interesting. As someone who thinks AI is an amazing tool, I am very well interested in seeing how will people refusing to use AI fare both in professional settings and day-to-day life.
A new Amish-like lifestyle may be developing before our eyes in real-time and that's very interesting to follow and observe (from a distance).
One thing I've seen with AI is AI as used by software developers is quickly diverging from AI that's used by knowledge workers.
Knowledge workers use it primarily to "augment" their work, answer questions with AI, get it to create documents, etc. But it's usually 1 individual to 1-2 conversation threads.
Meanwhile in software development were running fleets of agents. At work we have it setup where firing off one agent request will eventually lead to like 10-20 AI calls at different parts of the process.
I make this distinctions because it changes how each group thinks about AI. For software devs it just feels like "moving up the stack". Yeah you're not writing code anymore but there is still plenty of work to do and problems to solve within your "software factory". Contrast that with knowledge workers that feel like the AI is making all of their decisions for them.
I almost think of this as a factory worker versus an artisan. The software devs are "factory workers" where we used to be on the floor but now we're managing the machines that took over the work. There are still tons of interesting problems at that stage and you still feel like you have worth. Contrast that with a knowledge worker that's more of an artisan in this analogy. For them they aren't running a factory but instead watching a robot do the work they used to do while they sit idle and watch it.
"Contrast that with a knowledge worker that's more of an artisan in this analogy. For them they aren't running a factory but instead watching a robot do the work they used to do while they sit idle and watch it".
I think your general thesis about how AI is used of agents vs. the general chat interface is true, but not the rest.
Your knowledge worker example is where people fail when using AI, and it is usually very obvious.
Knowledge workers who know what they're doing recognized very quickly that AI often goes down very bad rabbit holes, often cites incorrect sources, makes up sources, or will use a random Facebook source or Reddit post as an authority on some topic. In legal circles you have to fight it to understand what venue(s) apply and to get it to stick to the right ones, in medical research it will sometimes pull in crackpot papers from left field and intermix them with well defined research.
People in the knowledge realm caught on very quickly that you have to use AI iteratively and constantly back check what you get and correct it. Let it run on its own and it will give you a legal theory based on some weird case in Kentucky that has no bearing to your issue with a court in Vermont.
This is not that much different in programming, it just takes longer to find out.
Using AI is like using adaptive cruise control: you're still in charge of where the vehicle will ultimately end up and if you decide to go take a nap you will wake up in the hospital or end up in the morgue.
It's true though that the 'time between interventions' is lengthening steadily.
>This is not that much different in programming, it just takes longer to find out.
The primary difference is that it's much easier for the AI to figure out itself if it's wrong on the programming side. Knowledge workers don't have automated testing for example.
The end result is the knowledge worker needs to be more heavily involved in the process and be more mindful of mistakes which makes it a worse experience for the user and generally less productive than it is for programmers.
It is more that knowledge workers are less sophisticated at using AI. It is not that hard to check whether sources are real, using AI or other tools, for example. Something like functional testing will come to non programming tasks.
Consistently catching errors is vastly harder when you’re not the one doing the legwork. Send the wrong file, do a bad copy and paste, or skip one verification step, etc is all it takes for most people to majorly mess up.
For most professionals it’s just safer to avoid having output in your workflow. Keep using AI, but stop copying and pasting AI output.
The major difference is that people routinely ship shoddy, broken products in the world of software with few consequences, beyond needing to patch it later. Try the same thing with a court filing and you’re out on your ass.
Yes exactly. It isn’t a surprise that the industry with no professional standards worth discussing is also the one having the biggest field day with ML. My point is that in many other professional arenas acting like a software “engineer” is called malpractice.
Well hang on, "just work" implies an objective standard of correct vs incorrect. No such standard exists. I'm sure that there will be legal AIs that reliably do... something... but the whole point of the legal system is to allow space for humans to argue their case. If an AI "does legal" deterministically, without human intervention, how can it be said to be "working" if its very use defeats the purpose of the system it has learned to navigate so expertly?
i wonder why dont we have a better pipeline for research.
for example ask opus to do some research, then have some hook configured with Haiku, JEV, anything that makes more sense really, only job is ti check the sources are real.
you can keep adding into this, of course it can get too big, of course it will still fail, but it will still be much better than the current state of things.
It seems to be a low hanging fruit with a huge value that no one has taken.
"People in the knowledge realm caught on very quickly that you have to use AI iteratively and constantly back check what you get and correct it."
If lawyers and article writers are in the knowledge realm. Then your thesis has plenty of counter-examples of people who just use AI to create stuff and don't correct it.
I usually have a high-level agent drafting plans, then spawning sub-agents to build parts of the plan, other sub-agents to check the work of those agents. Then the PRs have different code review agents looking at the code, on top of the agents for people on my team also reviewing my code.
And I'm probably on the more amateurish end of AI development. As I learned these techniques from YouTube.
When you hear about the work Anthropic researchers are doing, they seem to be using hundreds or thousands of agents to solve problems.
> When you hear about the work Anthropic researchers are doing, they seem to be using hundreds or thousands of agents to solve problems.
There's a reason they're Anthropic researchers. The value proposition tanks when you actually have to foot the bill for the tokens you use.
Subagent flows can improve overall performance, but it generally also comes with disproportionately high token use. That gets worse with parallel subagents that are often doing the same things at the same time and cannot share a cache.
So the point I was trying to make is that I'm maybe in the 25th percentile of developers and am using multiple agents for a task, and Anthropic researchers are at the 99th percentile and are using thousands of agents per task.
So the median developer is probably using 5-20 agents at a time for a task. I'm not sure if that crosses the threshold of being a "fleet of agents".
I'm curious to see your source for these numbers. Your flow sounds closer to a 99th percentile one than a 25th. I find it hard to believe that a median developer is using 5-20 agents at a time.
Yeah... N=2-3 here but my team prefers having 1 main agent and maybe a couple more finely tuned ones for review / analysis / security... I generally have 2-3 chats going on different tasks but more than that and I lose the plot.
the way I read this passage - author claims to be not a particularly skilled or fast-paced practitioner, and yet it is true that author is using agents like this. Next, very advanced researchers -- in the heart of the AI Frontier industry -- are using many more agents with much larger actions.
The "median developer" refers to the particularly skilled or fast-paced, not that there are continuous numbers of every practitioner using N-agents
They are doing that because they are running into hardware limits with single agents. If one agent made correct decisions and explored spaces efficiently, they would not need hundreds of thousands of agents. It's is the luxury of great wealth that they can produce a large number of possibly defective samples and then select the ones that are not defective.
Yeah, I very much dispute the characterization GP made as to how software devs are working. I know some are. But I do not believe it's the majority of people in the field, not by a long shot.
Supposedly they are out there. I heard from one person who claimed it. They didn't have a viable product and said their ai spend was in the tens of thousands a month for over 6 months. 1 employee startup baby
We have 5 star restaurants, fast food and street meat yet we still have kitchens. We can go to the super market to buy eggs, and produce yet I know people who have gardens to grow their own food and a scant few have chickens for eggs.
I don't actually use AI much at all simply because in my line of work the knowledge is industry specific and niche - an AI can't tell you how to fix a proprietary machine. I have used it a few times but to do dumb things like write some Excel script or some other piece of software I have no interest or need for learning.
I use the AI in the "knowledge worker" way you described. However I still feel it's augmenting my work, because I don't ask or expect it to make decisions for me. I use it to gather sources, to criticize my ideas, to generate summaries targeted to people expectations, and so on. Yes of course it's gonna influence my work with their own biases, but I don't think it is that important - my own biases are otherwise still there...
That's because current AI models are incapable of doing knowledge workers' jobs. At least for me as an attorney, Harvey is only actually useful when it comes to helping me sort through large amounts of data. Even then, I can't trust its judgment (it has shown to be very poor) so it's only so useful
Language is a tool for abstraction, and AI is just an imperfect tool for working with language.
In the sense that "down the stack" is well-captured by existing language, AI is absolutely moving programmers up the stack. I can describe my goals using high-level abstractions, and the low-level implementation is somewhat constrained by that.
How well constrained it is depends on how well I described the problem and the quality of the model - much like how good human-written code is depends on how clearly the authors were thinking when they designed the structure.
Oh, well, I guess the managers at my last job were secretly "programmers" who were simply farther up the stack — all the way up to the CEO, evidently the greatest programmer of them all.
I think you are onto something. I think most agents I have up is two and even that I am not super comfortable not carefully managing. Otoh, buddy has agents galore running his network and everything giving him updates in near real time. I just.. don't have that much .. I want to say faith, but that suggests unshakeable religious belief.. confidence. I don't have that kind of confidence. There is too much stuff connected now ( taxes, projects, work, fun ). I am slowly starting to separate everything even that takes some careful planning.
Devs are just early. What you describe knowledge workers doing is what devs did a year (or two) ago and in fact my dev colleagues still use it like that. Web interface with a chat, copy pasting code.
Was going to say, to the extent I rely on Claude, I'm closer to the old school than the new hotness. I don't run fleets of agents per se, I just use Claude Code with a good bit of back-and-forth and review. So not quite web browser level usage, but I don't have a big swarm of agents working full time. I guess CC can spin up multiple agents, but I don't know if that counts.
Fortunately I'm in a shop that isn't being judged by feature output quantity, but is absolutely judged on whether or not our internal or external customers go out of service. We don't have pressure to pump output.
I'm starting to have them gather info to feed into automated tooling for drafting tasks. It's just there's no good harness for my field (and only recently have models been able to read symbolic things well enough)
This looks like the classic "AI can do everybody else's job but mine still needs me".
I know knowledge workers who throw what you give them into the slop machine and return the slop, but I don't need them, I can feed the slop machine myself. I still need those who have experience and taste that the machine hasn't got yet.
> A new Amish-like lifestyle may be developing before our eyes in real-time and that's very interesting to follow and observe (from a distance).
I’m just old enough to remember some older adults in my life who refused to use email. They would only talk to coworkers in person or on the phone.
It did not work out very well, unless they could afford to retire at that point. When your career evolves, the only way to keep participating is to evolve with it.
I knew a guy early in my career who has a secretary (for starters!) who printed out his email and put them on his desk every morning with the rest of the mail. He would then dictate his response to her and she would type it in. It was pure ego. Nothing else.
Yes, and because typists and secretaries were predominately women, it was not as uncommon as one might imagine for male executives to eschew personal computers based on their perception of gender roles.
There's a great anecdote about that in the book _Dealers of Lightning_, where the Xerox execs were indifferent to a demo of the Star personal computer but their wives were ecstatic about it.
I don't know why you're being downvoted, this is absolutely true.
I had a boss early in my career (around 1990) who considered typing effeminate and was mildly horrified at what the world was coming to with all us guys who were cheerfully using a keyboard. He had a secretary who did all his typing. This was ~5 years before email became common, but I'm sure he would have had all his emails printed so he could read them properly.
And I've read somewhere that quite a fraction of young people nowadays can't type (effectively) on a physical keyboard - no wonder, their main interaction with computing being via phones and tablets. Could be that typing won't be useful/practiced anymore (like already cursive writing in some parts of the world).
There is a generation of people that are unique insofar as having grown up with handwriting on pen and paper (with cursive!) in school while also having typing/computing classes and access to the internet at a young age. Of course, people could type before computers, though it was a specialist skill more often than not, and kids certainly have every opportunity to pick up both handwriting and touch typing today, but the balance of it all isn't quite the same is it?
I have a friend who uses ChatGPT, but writes all the messages on paper, takes a picture, and sends it in. Then prints out all the responses to annotate and respond to.
Yes, he doesn't really know how to use a computer. He was born in the 1940s, computer skills are not super common for people from that generation. He was already in his mid-50s when computers started to become common in the workplace.
I’m in my mid forties. If VR/ar devices like the Apple Vision Pro were to go mainstream, I can’t imagine myself learning how to use it effectively as a daily driver device to get work done. Heck, even the Internet, I’m pretty sure my relationship with it is more of wary scepticism than most people in their thirties.
I can see why someone who never used email until their fifties would never get fully comfortable with it.
Isn't this the original point? The workplace is getting AI-ified, so there are lots of people who are unwilling/unable/uncomfortable changing the way they work to deal with it.
i have 4 email accounts, and I check them maybe once a week. nobody sends me emails any more, everybody uses "messaging"
(actually, i forgot i have 2 or 3 others, I check them even less, perhaps a few times a year, really only when i need to reset a password associated with them)
Out of roughly 400 billion emails sent daily worldwide, estimates pin actual human written messages at around 10%. In personal inboxes, human correspondence is essentially extinct. Checking my own personal email inbox right now, the entire first page is 2FA, Amazon, some shit from my climbing gym, my car, my employer health insurance, my bank... My spam filters are aggressive and there are literally thousands of unread emails in there waiting for me to click select all -> delete. Even at work the overwhelming majority is automated Jira noise, CI/CD noise, calendar shit, compliance blasts... I have received maybe 2 or 3 actual human typed messages in the last 2-3 weeks.
Totally agree. About half the time, or more, that I send an actual email I get no reply because it got lost in the deluge of crap and I end up calling or texting the recipient so they know to search their inbox for my message.
For personal correspondence? Yes. Most of what email was used for, for actual humans in their personal lives, has transitioned to SMS and other apps like WhatsApp, WeeChat, Signal, Discord, and that happened a decade ago.
You see that 90% of the daily volume is sludge and think this is a healthy communication network for humans?
What unique selling point do individuals operating AI still have if it's AI doing the heavy lifting and specialized work? I mean I don't believe that people in general will need to work less (no automation has done that), but I'm convinced many people will need to find new employment at lower wages in a society where cost of living only increases.
I can't afford a pay cut, and AI isn't making my job worth more.
" will need to find new employment at lower wages "
Why at lower wages? Most automation has led to people transitioning to higher wages. Utility works get paid 10x more than lamplighters. Why would that change here? Your job will have a bigger impact, affect more people, and you'll be doing more with less.
I am not saying all employers will immediately start paying people more, but economically it doesn't make sense that pay will go down.
Recent news from China about how better AI capabilities changed what Chinese specialists can earn with microdramas are not confirming this point. Some historical analogies to reassure people things will turn out nice in the end are nice but are not very convincing if you have so many more recent counterexamples with the gig economy and the huge inflation that was not a problem in the early 20th century.
The economy now is very different, no gold or silver standard, less isolation and more globalised product chains and processes, and 7-times as many people.
There is a good chance that a large enough number of people will suffer from this transformation, and they will have to fight with whatever they have, because if they don't, they will risk being left on the roadside and not getting any raise.
People having some direction over how jobs are automated should keep that in mind, otherwise it will be too late to convince the masses of people fearing automation that it is their fault not seeing the positive angles of automation.
To me this just reads like how I imagine people and the Luddites thought about automated looms. At first they were excited, thinking about the cheap and abundant cloth they put in plenty of work to make automated looms work flawlessly, until they start getting replaced. But they made excuses that they always need someone who knows more than "put cloth on spool, press button" to run these factories and that skilled people will always be needed. But slowly and surely the factory went towards quantity and not quality, and since quantity was done regardless why pay for the skilled and knowledgeable workers? And soon nobody made good money making cloth except the factory owner, the cloth was shit, and the people who built it all left with nothing but memories of once being valuable.
>>people who built it all left with nothing but memories of once being valuable.
But, the story doesn't end there does it? Most loom workers left their jobs and became factory workers (part of the same technology revolution) and critically: made MORE money. They were wealthier. And the loom machine operators left had a better job. There are very good sources for this, not just vibes [1].
I don't deny that the transition process is traumatic, and there is much we should be doing this time around to assuage the process. But all the evidence points to a general rise in pay, material conditions and standard of living.
As anyone in the Rust Belt can tell you, the average worker might experience higher wages over time, but the average worker is a statistical fiction, not a flesh and blood person.
Individuals and entire communities can live out the rest of their lives destitute and hopeless in the wake of changes that leave them behind. Things might be brighter for those who come after, but let's not pretend we're not doing real violence to those left behind.
The "average worker" ends up getting more wealthy because younger, newer employees who grow up native to the new technology often capture its upsides at the expense of older workers who were unable to. The Rust Belt is a great example of this because most kids ended up migrating out to cities for work while their parents or the less successful ones ended up stuck.
There's a lot of questions right now.
1. Will there be a net-new creation of jobs? Is positive-sum knowledge work a real thing, or have we run out of new jobs to create?
2. How quickly will workers transition to an AI version of their jobs?
3. Will AI even succeed in a broad way across knowledge work or will the frontier of AI remain jagged and only impact some jobs (coding) while leaving others alone?
4. For workers left behind in this transition, what will their lives be like? We know from looking at previous technology transitions (industrial revolution, factory automation, computer revolution, now maybe AI revolution) that many workers really do end up in bad places. It's perfectly reasonable to demand that in today's world in our advanced societies that even if those workers are unable to adapt that they are able to lead lives with dignity.
There's a lot of interesting conversations and investigations to be had but my biggest fear is just that nobody is really willing to listen to the other side with empathy. This entire conversation thread is just people snipping at each other, hitting the vote buttons based on where they want to steer their favorite opinion. If you want to do social and economic science in this space but people are so polarized, the work will be thwarted. In general offline spaces are less polarized (not to be mistaken for pro or anti AI disruption) than online spaces, but my fear is that we continue to polarize, making understanding the fabric of our social change challenging and letting down everyone in the process.
>>is really willing to listen to the other side with empathy
Agreed, which is why I explicitly said: "I don't deny that the transition process is traumatic, and there is much we should be doing this time around to assuage the process."
I want to find a way to lead with this sentiment, and I think the focus should be on this. It's hard on people to work through these transitions and lashing out at every new technology only helps temporarily.
>> or have we run out of new jobs to create?
FWIW, I think this is an insane idea and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of humans. We're status seeking creatures. As an AI developer, I'm hoping AI can help us meet everyones needs up the first couple of layers of Maslow's hierarchy. But no way are we solving the former status problems. That will remain and will be creating jobs out the wazoo.
I don't think the analogy holds. AI isn't automating one job, it's automating _knowledge work_. There's no factory work to flee to, literally and figuratively.
Try to come up with a job that both doesn't produce anything physical, and can't be done by AI.
This is vague marketing speak and simply not the reality on the ground. As someone implementing all new workflows, most of the time I’m create new product classes wholesale. sometimes I see people upskilling tasks so the same human can do more.
I can’t think of a single knowledge job where they are removing humans from the loop completely.
Random news headlines of struggling companies doing “AI layoffs” don’t count. No amount of AI can save bad leadership.
people who spout the trite “everything will be better at some nondescript future point in time” are essentially screaming “the ends justify the means and screw everyone else, i’m going to get my bag / be ok”.
From what I've been able to find, that book does not make the argument that the people actually displaced from their jobs ended up better off. It is certainly possible for some workers to end up better off while those who were displaced do not.
> Most automation has led to people transitioning to higher wages.
No, what you mean to say is that automation has eventually (decades later) led to higher purchasing power in the system as a whole. The outlook for people that were directly automated away was pretty bleak, actually. The hundreds of thousands of lamplighters did not largely become the thousands of electricians that were needed in this new industry.
This tracks for all industries. Automation literally means far fewer people will be employed to do the same job (otherwise what's the point of it?). That dumps these workers out at the low end of the general job market, where they have to compete with an increasing number of people. Because of the desperation to get any job, the wages fall. It's only decades later that societies settled into a new place and created enough brand new jobs to make up the shortfall, or applied regulation to reign in the crazy power imbalance. That's the stuff you miss out on if you only look at statistics that span centuries and treat the population as one homogeneous mass. The people who are directly targeted by automation are very likely to have their lives messed up for a very long time.
Easy. Name one profession within the North American context that makes less money (inflation adjusted) now than say a farmer, loom weaver or laborer of yore.
A grub hub delivery man is wealthier today than a farmer 100 years ago and that's purely because of two reasons: Technology and Unions :)
This argument only works if you have a career (and lifespan) that spans 100+ years. I'd venture a guess that 0% of Grubhub delivery drivers were farmers a hundred years ago.
Have you talked to a delivery driver in most large cities? Most of them come from countries where they would be a farmer or day laborer.
This ball is going through even your ever-moving goal posts. My statement never claimed people's careers would stay the same and they'd just make more money.
But you didn't provide any support for saying that the specific people who were automated away would make more money. That's what people are objecting to.
Well, for example, a metric ass-ton of shoes and shoe components are made in Bosnia. But hardly anyone still makes the traditional opanci in the traditional way; there's one guy left in the whole Hercegovina that does. And they are required for the national costume, so they are still important. But the economics just don't work out.
>>What about artisanal cobblers vs Southeast Asia Nike sweatshop workers?
No technology involved? Other than I guess tangentially, containerized shipping. I don't see how that analogy applies here at all, every AI workflow I've seen has been either:
a) Totally new thing that was never done before that is possible now and is therefore creating a new class of work
b) Worst case scenario: a whole spate of jobs being consolidated under one person, but its still a human in the end.
So everything I'm seeing is pointing to this being a lamplighter/utility worker situation.
The job is to automate the enterprise, keep things safe and reliable, and make money for the company.
It was never about software. That was just the means.
Even in the software era, fads developed and tech stacks changed frequently. Now it's just moving a hundred times faster.
You need smart systems thinkers to do this. That's the role. Be smart in managing processes and complexity.
I'm not going to give coding interviews anymore, but I am going to give architecture, systems design, and SRE interviews. People still need to know how not to fuck up a database and how to design scalable and resilient systems.
The number of people who never seem to have understood what software and IT is in most companies is eye opening to me. Your job was never really to "write code" - you were always automating things.
That the field got somewhat stuck for a couple decades seems to have made many people forget this.
The vast majority of programmers who started in the 80's and 90's are basically directly responsible for massive waves of job losses in certain categories. Lots of cases of entire departments of secretarial level paper-pushing work being replaced with a small team of programmers. Same will happen with AI tooling. The difference is programmers are no longer the "winning" party here.
Computers and software in the end are the most configurable and complex automation system society has ever created. They are simply a continuation of industrial automation, and AI is a continuation upon that.
I don't like that comparison. Email was an improvement to snail mail, and the people who you claim refused to use it just didn't understand it and didn't want to understand it.
Lots of people, myself included, understand llms and can and do use them at work because we have to, but we might choose to not use them outside of work because they rot our brains, are unethical, funnel even more money into the hands of a few billionaires (selling a service trained on stolen property) and haven't actually been proven to make the world better. Unlike email!
Email stopped me having to walk to the post box or spend a lunch hour in the post office. Before WhatsApp etc it let me communicate instantly with relatives in other countries for free. Email made my website accounts harder to crack. So many things.
What the fuck have LLMs done yet? Nothing! We would be no worse off without them so far and no one has anything to show to prove otherwise, except some vibe coded websites that all look the same (edgy dark theme and hacker vibes)
About 20 years ago I had a phone number that was one digit off from a local attorney who took medical malpractice cases. And despite not using it myself, that phone line had built-in fax detection and so it would accept any incoming fax and then email the results to me. I lost count of the number of times I got sent a good chunk of someone's private medical records. In many cases repeatedly from the same source, despite me calling them and politely explaining that they had just sent someone's medical records to a random stranger.
So ... perhaps more secure than email, but not necessarily as much as you'd think. Though maybe it isn't as common now to have phone lines with fax receiving included. I worked for a CLEC at the time and got my phone & internet through them too, so maybe I was just getting the special deluxe plan. Had my very own public class C, too, but that's a different problem.
I think there’s a wide space between refusing any AI use, and refusing AI use requirements imposed by an employer. For example, one might find AI valuable for search, research, and getting a second opinion, but refuse it for primary generation of content.
I hope the rest of the debate would stay this rational.
Unfortunately, a lot of the pushback against AI has turned into knee-jerk opposition, where people reject the technology outright, without even understanding how it works or how it can be used constructively.
Just earlier today on Instagram, I saw a post where the top comments were genuinely celebrating the idea of AI "disappearing forever."
It’s disheartening to see the conversation get so reactionary.
They've stopped technological progress. I tell you since AI started taking over, my experience is that nearly all forward progress (in software at least) has come to a halt. We've been standing in place, maybe sliding backwards a bit.
Here's the thing about AI: intelligence isn't a new thing, and it isn't a tool. The Amish can tell you that having a brain doesn't meant that you don't need a plow. In some ways they're much smarter than the AI crowd, all of who loudly keep insisting that brains will make plows and tractors and combine harvesters obsolete. You're so convinced that intelligence is the ultimate replacement for tools that you've stopped climbing the tech tree of tools...
It's like the tech industry itself no longer believes in technology.
I'm glad I'm not the only one noticing that. It feels that aside from the regular new LLM releases, there has been no serious innovation for the past four years.
I'm not even talking about holographic game consoles or FTL travel. Why can't we finally have a good container orchestrator that's not kubernetes for example?
> Why can't we finally have a good container orchestrator that's not kubernetes for example?
Easy, we can't because the LLMs know a lot about kubernetes but wouldn't know anything about a new orchestrator, so they'll always suggest k8s, and the button-pushers will just say "yes, do it, no mistakes". Maybe if Anthropic decides they need to create a new orchestrator, they would bias Claude heavily enough for it to actually get used, but that's about the only way I see.
Perhaps because the tools that we have already are already good enough.
"Why don't we have any new programming languages" or "Why don't we have any new web frameworks" or "Why don't we have any new operating systems" or "Why don't we have any new container orchestrators" might be the same kinds of questions as "why is the design for washing machines still basically the same as it was 50 years ago?" or "why are we still using English, where are all the new conlangs to replace it?" "why are we still using email/SMTP instead of inventing a better system" "why haven't we invented a new calendar?"
You're saying there's nothing left to invent. I think that explains a lot of the complacency around considering AI to be the last ever frontier for progress. I obviously don't agree. I've gone looking into "why don't we have better version control" and the answer is definitely not that we already have all we could want.
Not at all, actually. In fact that's the opposite of what I'm arguing. There are countless things left to invent. It's just not worth doing most of the time.
As a trivial example, Unicode is not a 100% perfect text encoding scheme. Why don't we have something better than unicode? Why is there no interest in making a unicode-but-better format which solves all the problems with unicode? The reason is, unicode is sufficiently good that the cost of switching would outweigh any marginal benefits.
It might not count as innovation in the last four years because the groundwork was laid decades ago, but in the last four years Waymo evolved to the point where it can drive on the highways.
All it will lead to is yet more people that are out of a job. Right now at least a driving license (more so if it is a commercial license) is a source of income to many.
And then what? Once the economy no longer depends on human input (labor), why do we expect it to keep producing outputs that humans need (food, shelter, medical care)?
Roughly 36k people died on US roads last year. Waymo's own numbers over 271M driverless miles show about 95% fewer serious injury crashes than the human benchmark in the cities it runs in. Discount that however much you want for methodology, it's still progress.
> Why can't we finally have a good container orchestrator that's not kubernetes for example?
What's the market demand? I'm confident there are plenty of alternatives being churned out today but nobody's looking or asking for any. If only because they settled on k8s, they have it on their CV, they have certifications, and switching is a huge investment and risk.
Right now to me it feels like the innovation is in using LLMs to (finally?) clean up existing code, find vulnerabilities, do maintenance, optimize, and if necessary rewrite.
It is progressing, yes, but it subsumed the productivity of humans.
Where before humans learned and built better tools, now you keep paying forever to get re-trained models. What makes it a regressive feedback loop is that the people who used to learn and push the frontier are now using AI to repackage others' work as their own. Eventually what will be left to train on but copies of copies of copies?
Software is an employment rather than a profession. That distinction is important. Here is a definition of profession:
Traditional professions share essential characteristics. They provide a vital service to society, requiring expertise and skill developed through years of training, education, and experience. Professions establish standards of practice and certify that their members are qualified to serve the needs of society.
--US Army, ADP 6-22, Army Leadership and the Profession
Software does not have explicit standards of practice or a required body of certifications for its practitioners. Software, as an employment, is whatever an employer wants or is willing to accept at any given moment.
What do you find important about this distinction? To me it's a description of the normative relationship between practitioners and broader society but I don't really see the significance you do.
Hillel Wayne wrote a really excellent well researched article about software engineering compared to other forms of engineering a few years ago. It necessarily goes into a lot of this stuff but what emerges is that these definitions are regulatory and historical debris.
You don't need medical board or a bar to certify or constrain professional behavior and those organizations may not constrain as much as you assume anyway. The reasons we do have those institutions is as much a matter of historical accident as any modern need for it, and the reasons we don't have it for other high impact fields is pretty much an accident too.
And in a lot of the world software engineering does have professional certification and standards of practice. They still ship adware and racist loan denial algorithms too.
If you have ever worked in almost any other industry your first question quickly answers itself. If you have never worked in an industry principally governed by ethical standards it would be challenging for me to describe it to you. I cannot give you what your perspective has never before imagined.
This is bunk/nonsense. Despite dentists ostensible having ethical standards, they are literally worse than lawyers on being scammers, charlatans, cranks, etc
Your definition would include Chiropractors as a profession. Such scum of the earth deserves nothing but contempt with extreme prejudice.
I just finished several months of interviewing and think that you must be projecting a bit. Every one of them included a coding interview with no AI use allowed.
This makes sense, though. They have to be exceptionally confident in the performance of the product and work to continually improve its quality and efficiency. Many other companies can get by more just as consumers of it, but the makers of the product need some of the best coding skills available.
If they do, they're behind the curve. They don't matter anymore.
Systems design, architecture, database fundamentals, a bit of SRE. That matters. Not coding and syntax and toy problem solving with data structures and algorithms.
I think this is something where definitions and static roles might serve as a useful reference point. Is it really the case that the trillion-dollar frontier AI labs are behind the curve, and only some other group of people knows how to really leverage AI? It's not impossible - Nvidia employees aren't the best in the world at using their chips - but the hypothesis practically demands some analysis of who these clever curve-setters are and why we're hearing so much less about them than about Anthropic.
My own experience is that coding, syntax, and some kinds of toy problem solving are important skills to use AI coding tools most effectively. I routinely get PRs these days whose descriptions seem plausible but are clearly wrong from a glance at the code, and I've had times when I'm unable to communicate to someone why a PR is wrong because they're not able to form a sufficiently detailed mental model of what it's doing.
The IEEE has made some efforts to turn software engineering from an occupation into a profession — on par with civil engineering, architecture, law, medicine, military science, etc. A true profession requires a recognized body of knowledge, formal qualification criteria, and a code of ethics. So far most working software developers haven't shown much interest in this, nor is there much demand from employers or government authorities. I don't think we need to professionalize software engineering in the general case but it is an option for those who want it.
Be careful with military definitions. One near-universal aspect of a "profession" is that it be self-regulating. Lawyers have Bar Associations that dictate who can or cannot practice. Doctors have Medical Associations. So too accountants and engineers. These entities are granted monopolies but remain independent from government and set their own standards.
But by that definition, soldiering can never be a "profession" as a soldier is always regulated by the government they serve, and there is no professional association regulating mercenaries. But I would be very hesitant to suggest that the US Marines are not professional soldiers. They are. The definitions are messy.
> These entities are independent from government and set their own standards.
As they should. Industries should be self regulating. While these industries form their own standards of practice they do so with the blessing of government, typically under state government supervision/authorization in the US, and are held to account by government. A lawyer or doctor who violates their standards of practice could very likely be guilty of criminal law and find themselves in prison depending upon the violation even when no other criminal actions occurred.
Even bus drivers are held to higher standards of practice than software developers.
>> Even bus drivers are held to higher standards of practice than software developers.
Because while there are some software developers that might be in a place to cause people physical harm, ALL bus drivers are ALWAYS in a position to cause great and immediate harm to others on the road.
Those percentage of SWE working on critical infrastructure should be licensed and legally liable, yes. You shouldn't need a license to build a CRUD app, just like nobody needs a license to build a treehouse in their backyard. You should need a license to work on a car's braking system (https://safetyresearch.net/toyota-unintended-acceleration-an...) or radiation therapy machines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25), just like you need a license to engineer a highway bridge.
I agree completely — the lack of proper professional licensing around working on what has become critical infrastructure astounds me. But even more so is the pushback I feel from within the field! It isn’t that the pushback isn’t understandable; its more that its disappointing.
People do things based on motivation. People motivated by pride and passion know that their work reflects upon them, so they have an incentive to care about quality. People motivated by money know that their paychecks will keep arriving as long as they keep meeting a minimum bar, so they're not incentivized to care about quality, but they are incentivized to care about responsiveness and consistency. For critical software, adding in legal liability for one's work creates the quality incentive that's lacking in most professional roles, while retaining the accountability that we can't expect of volunteers.
In most (all?) US states, you need a license to be a _Professional_ Engineer. This is a legal distinction that carries weight _and_ legal liability. It doesn't mean that you cannot "engineer" without a license. There's legal distinctions on what work a licensed engineer can and cannot do, and what work must be done by or under the supervision of a licensed engineer. e.g. a junior's work has to be signed off by a supervising PE. To become a PE, a licensed Engineering Intern must have first passed a preliminary exam issued by the state and worked under a PE for a minimum amount of time with satisfactory performance (think apprenticeship).
It's the legal liability that SWEs don't want. e.g. You wouldn't be able to just slap "This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE." on your software and walk away from it when lives are at stake. A so-called Profession Software Engineer would have to accept liability for their work product, and those of the juniors working under them.
I started down the road to becoming a Professional Engineer while I was in college as I studied Electrical Engineering and was more interested in hardware/power engineering. I took, and passed, the Engineering Intern Test in my state (which is the preliminary exam you take before you can start your journey to become a PE). Then life happened and job/career opportunities took me in a different direction/industry, and I've been doing software instead. So, I never became a licensed Professional Engineer. I'm still a licensed engineering intern, though. I'm still bound by the legal and ethical standards that it entails and could lose my license for violations.
There are certainly things where you need to have an officially licensed engineer actually stamp the plans. That doesn't mean everything about the plans was done by someone who holds that stamp, just that they were reviewed and signed off by the person holding the license. Lots of people may work on those plans. They're still doing engineering work. And that's just for the kinds of things which actually require a licensed "engineer".
There's still tons of jobs which is often still called "engineering" which often don't involve anyone who has a stamp. Few electrical engineers, chemical engineers, mechanical engineers, or lots of others actually have any kind of engineering license. They still get degrees in things like "Bachelor of Science of Electrical Engineering" or "Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering". Their job roles usually have "engineer" in it. And yet it seems like the job people only really criticize as "you're not an engineer, engineers are licensed" is SWE.
Think about it like this: What makes software any more or less of a profession than working at your favorite burger joint in terms of industry wide criteria?
AI is new but this phenomenon isn't. Every new wave of tech has sizable opposition.
People refused phone calls, refused to watch TV, refused to buy computers, refused to move their workflows to software, refused emails or browing the web, refused online shopping, refused smartphones, refused social media.
And there's nothing wrong with any of this. Ultimately everyone decides which stage of technology they are comfortable with. Everything until then is comfortable and convenient, and everything newer is corrupting society and rotting our brains.
I came of age with the personal PC revolution and developed my career during the internet revolution, and was well into my career when the mobile computing smartphone revolution occurred. I did not see or feel even a fraction of the amount of social dread with those technologies that I see with AI, and I think that's justified given the circumstances.
Saying that this revolution is another one of those is true in a general sense, but misleading in the specific sense. Just as saying that adding 1c heat to some body of water is "more of the same" can be true in a general sense, but misleading when the water's basis temperature is 99.5c.
That is to say, periodic or gradual change induces large changes at inflection points.
It feels similar to the progression from post-WW2 technological utopianism that arose with the adoption and deployment of massive advancements in materials and mechanical, and electrical technology, to the cold-war dread of nuclear and ballistic technology.
I think the 90s saw the end of the cold war which lifted a bunch of that dread. The optimism of those days has been worn down over time.
What I remember back then is at least the pretense being sold that the technology would improve people's lives by giving them more leisure and enjoyment. That the productivity gains would be reflected in some improvement in quality of life. I think the main difference now is that this expectation has been lost by most people.
I have the feeling this expectation loss is what triggered the current riots in Western Europe. I'm not talking about the platforms and actors which might be fanning and fueling them, but the trigger which I have seen at work at my kids or nephews - they don't see much hope they can rely on some income, on getting their own house, on feeding their own children. Of course they are young and easier influenced, and I might be biased myself, but I really believe they have less chances than what I had at their age. I won't tell them that though.
I’m unaware of other technological revolutions where the largest group of opposition was among young people[0]. Was there a great youth revolt against the telephone, the television, and the computer? I don’t recall anything of the sort.
From conversations with my young kids the problem they have is with the billionaires. They are fine with the technology they just don’t trust the billionaires and who can blame them.
I don't think the underlying numbers support the thesis. My understanding (from e.g. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2026/06/17/how-opinions...) is that the age skew is not that high and largely driven by how much more likely young people are to be familiar with the technology at all.
I disagree with "sizable". We haven't seen near this level of opposition in the past (I'm old enough to know), mostly because moving from say landlines to mobile phones, or postal mail to email, or radio to TV, didn't threaten the jobs of large segments of the population. Past opposition tended to be more rooted in culture or even religion (TV as a vehicle for "ungodly" programming, etc.)
> People refused phone calls, refused to watch TV, refused to buy computers, refused to move their workflows to software, refused emails or browing the web, refused online shopping, refused smartphones, refused social media.
You really think this is an apt comparison? I don't think the creators of any of those technologies were warning society that their own creations might wipe out humanity.
> I don't think the creators of any of those technologies were warning society that their own creations might wipe out humanity.
They are only doing this now IMO so that they can be the ones writing the regulations to keep us all "safe", just like we need identity verification to "save the children". They want to keep competition at bay so they can have a $2T IPO, and unregulated, "unsafe", Chinese, open-weight, and local AI threatens that IPO.
You might only be hearing about it now but the warnings have been coming (including by those who are now leading the top labs) for a long time, since before any of those “incentives” were in place.
Some of those people in the early days were just letting their imagination run away with them, like that google engineer who thought a chatbot was self-aware, being enslaved, and was in need of rescue. Much of the time they weren't talking about "AI" as it exists, but what AI might maybe one day become. Other times it was purely marketing to make headlines and put the idea in people's (investors) heads that the chatbots were vastly more powerful than they are.
Not to sound insane (because those who know, know), but CRT's actually resolve very well and are league better than most non OLED displays for non-text based media consumption.
I run a wide-screen 1080i Sony Display as my main TV. Power consumption sucks, though.
Lol, what a slave mindset. Just because a technology exists, and most of the human cattle use it, does not mean that it's necessary for someone to use it.
Sure, be less productive, see how that works out for you. Your attitude in 2026 is crazy to me. Maybe you're just using chat, I don't know, but it saves me hours daily and saves my brainpower for situations that truly need it. Work smarter, not harder.
I haven't read TFA yet, but having studied academically and then spent years implementing ML techniques for industrial applications (in the areas of machine vision and signals processing), I think that the premise of "AI exemption" is just nonsensical, by nature of being ill-defined. AI isn't a singular product or technology, it's an abstract family of computational techniques, some more complex or mathematically involved than others. Finding function parameters to fit data points using a least squares method is ML, therefore AI, and you would find that in every thermostat, ABS system or electric bike. Too simple? Here is a gradient of increasingly sophisticated ML techniques, with LLMs not even being on the top of the list. Where do you place the cursors of "what's too much AI"?
Small thing: many/most of the people outsiders identify as Amish actually aren't. There are a variety of group living similar lifestyles, give or take. Collectively they are now described as the "Plain People", which links to both their apparently simple ways and mode of dress.
I've been reading articles suggesting that AI use alters ways of thinking. Humans certainly adapt to the tools they use. If this is true, and what a huge caveat that is, then the divergence in ways humans think: AI using and non-AI using will be interesting to watch. Although it will probably be decades before any significant conclusions are reached.
I find your Amish example is striking and accurate.
What I see a lot of in my own industry (games) is that people that don't like AI either 1) see something that changes how they think of it and start the slow path of adoption or 2) continually dig their heels in and/or refuse to update their priors.
As technical qualms were solved and many other capability issues with AI have been solved, the continual heel digging and goal posting by group 2 has started to just feel more akin to a religious stance than something based on any specific fact. There is no version of AI that they want to see, they will oppose it on moral(-ish) grounds on sight, etc.
AI has real issues, but like you, observing this re-adjustment in realtime has been really interesting, especially as it seems to come from people I share 99% overlap in interest and politics with, but who hate AI like they do.
It also feels akin to de-radicalizing MAGA or something. The rejection or idea that they are wrong causes a whole worldview to collapse in something akin to ego death, so instead of facing that possibility they just insist they are right.
I suspect most of it comes down to the tacit promise of what happens once everything works as intended, as a matter aside from any technical imperfections. The marketing material and the target financial valuations aren't predicated on the notion that you get to be incredibly productive, fulfilled, and get to spend all day making cool things and solving interesting problems. The sales pitch is that you can be made to work incredibly hard as the ever-growing machine drags the relative value of your having a brain to zero, and that, at such a moment as it reaches its perfection, everyone below the VP level can be safely shoved into a blender and all intelligence, expertise, and execution can be rented out from OpenAI without any operational hiccups.
If the point is that we all get shoved in a blender, and the people building the blender are actively salivating over what they'll be able to pawn the resultant slurry off for——does being told that the economic efficiency of the blender is inevitable or that you may get shoved into a Vitamix instead of a Kenmore——does any of that move the needle on your projected life satisfaction post-blender?
What is the alternative here? If you assume everyone is already going into the blender, that means everyone is going into the blender and it doesn't matter anyways. If we don't go into a blender, but you spent the most crucial 4 years of your career saying everyone is going into a blender, I fear for what your career prospects will look like on the other side of that potential blender-less future.
I think you should spend more time reading what people who oppose AI think about what AI is capable of doing. Many people still don't understand that it can search the web.
I strongly disagree that an AI-free world view should be granted religious exemptions from an employer - don't like the way it's done, go look somewhere else. Isn't that comparable to refusing to use a phone or computer?
Don't get me wrong, just like the Amish, I believe it's a valid or even honorable choice for him to make. I also highly respect the Amish though because they're a minority that refuses to be victimized by their choices and that's the stance I'd like to see here.
> he does not have to use AI to complete his work.
I wonder if that'll just result in him offloading work to people that act as AI proxies for him and then, wouldn't the human have less value than the AI since he just delegates?
I am all in on (local and sovereign) AI, but people still call me Amish because I do not use a smartphone which has greatly increased my attention span and happiness. I imagine there will be plenty of people that are more productive at some tasks by choosing to abstain from one or more almost universally used technologies.
I find this man's ostrich response to be quite different from my world view, but agree that it is fascinating to confront. Given that so many of us consume the world via tiny handheld screens and vote the way they do, I think it is definitely worth considering an artificial intelligence hedge. AI Maternalism would be a wildly unpopular counter proposition at the moment, but you have to admit humans aren't succeeding at governance right now either. Some of the parody AI movements are pretty amazing to behold: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DI2fSgssIW2/. I know, I know, but I had points to spare.
Technologists as a professional group are beyond weird. You usually expect rational critique (either positive or negative) from professionals, but the good technologists are supposed to just uncritically accept whatever supposed technological progress as an unalloyed good. Employer or Silicon Valley says it’s good, therefore think it is good. No, that’s a bit on the nose: Silicon Valley says it is good which means that it would be “good for my career”, therefore it is good. But are there any ill effects for society? Those are Luddite questions.[1]
But in this case Amish is not really an insult of course. I guess they are a hard-working people. Self-sufficient. And allow their young to take a sabbatical from the primitive life to see if it’s really something that they want to dedicate their life to.
On the other hand, of course there won’t be some Amish split. You can’t just pick and choose modernity. You can’t form a subculture of No AI. That’s why people are critical of AI; we live in a society.
[1] Being ahistorical and using Luddite as an insult also helps.
My new analogy for AI is that it produces an elaborate lunch buffet containing so many floral arrangements that considerable effort must be expended to find the food being served.
> Comparing people to Amish that dont want to use LLMs is wild.
What makes the comparison wild? The Amish are thoughtful and deliberate about what technologies they reject, adopt, and accept with constraints. Many of the people I know who have concerns about relying on LLMs are similarly thoughtful and deliberate.
"If our world survives, the next great challenge to watch out for will come - you heard it here first - when the curves of research and development in artificial intelligence, molecular biology and robotics all converge. Oboy. It will be amazing and unpredictable, and even the biggest of brass, let us devoutly hope, are going to be caught flat-footed. It is certainly something for all good Luddites to look forward to if, God willing, we should live so long."
I just looked it up and Thomas Pynchon remains alive.... how wonderful.
Why would I read an entire essay when you can't even be bothered to tell me what it's supposed to prove? I couldn’t care less whether it was by Pynchon, Marx, Friedman, Amodei, or anyone else.
It's not an either or, really. I can concede it has utility authoring code while being repulsed by its use in creative works. I might operate Claude Code while actively avoiding any significant use of it in movies, books and music.
This is exactly where I'm at. I also avoid using AI for the more creative parts of programming too, while finding utility in it for the more tedious parts.
I'm not sure if terrorism is the right word (how can you do bad things to software?), but I am sure that sabotage on datacenters will become a thing. But that's not a direct response to AI, but one to building more datacenters, using power (and potable water, but I'm not convinced that's as big of a thing as people make it out to be compared to other industries / wastes), and corporate greed which does not improve the lives of the common people.
sabotaging data centers, data gathering infra (flock cameras), web infrastructure
These are just methods within the current societal norms and context, if not I could think of 10 more.
For example, it is not beyond the realm of imagination to think that large swathes of people could stop using technology (as in phones & computers) altogether, and return to a more traditional physical communal state.
It is not beyond the realm of imagination that countries, after suffering from cyber attacks, could start decoupling themselves from the global internet, and wall themselves off (similar to China), and develop their own unique culture around technology.
It is not beyond the realm of imagination that tags like Anti-AI be mandated to be attached to products similarly to kosher, halal, etc.
I read it as: faring well in a work/industry/employment situation where expectations for velocity and quality pivot on the fact that 99% of your peers use AI, and 90% of those use it to do poor quality work quickly.
Now your boss is surprised your email took more than 10s to produce, and wonders why you are concerned about what it contains. None of your teammates are.
AI is amazing, but it is not a tool anymore. Humans are the tools (agents) for AI to do things in real world. All the decision makers in business and polity are no longer able to rule out a direction provided by AI, making the AI the decision maker for humans. Even Fed is using "Sim Fed" to make rate decisions for the economy. The era of human-decision is over.
Also, you might think that you are observing Amish (or AImish) from a distance. It is same for them. They watch the modern world rot with uncontrolled and out-of-sync evolution. You are being observed.
Calling this as a luddite is pretty privileged. And I can absolutely see why someone believes that. I am completely against the AI companies, especially the US ones. They are full of it and fascist.
I say that as someone that uses it everyday for technical things only, for research it is great. i literally have 30 sessions in parallel going with an LLM. that said, I struggle to see the need for AI in anything else. I build it into services that I build but that scope is nowhere what meta would have you believe. It doesn't need to be making decisions for you. You don't need to offload decisions to it. It is upon you to validate and research the findings and the finding generation process.
Yes, though from legal standpoint, this particular case isn't that interesting because its a religious exemption for religious work, where considering the moral and ethical boundaries is the main job?
But if someone was say, working on housing approvals and refused to use AI because of religious exemptions to do their jobs faster, I would hope any court would strike it down.
My right to housing supersedes their right to work a certain (slower) way? "You can just wait longer" is an unacceptable answer.
It's easy to find egregious corner cases of philosophical workflows where an LLM was inappropriately used to replace thinking, where the whole goal was thinking (which is the case here).
But we know most token use is software development + back office paperwork. A big chunk of it is productivity improvements for things we all need (housing, medical paperwork, insurance etc.), so to me, that's where my argument lies.
For most of the things that people really care about, I don't think that the bottleneck is the sort of thing that AI is automating.
The bottleneck for housing is construction and landlords. The bottleneck for medicine is the number of doctors and the inelasticity of demand. The bottleneck for education is the number of teachers. Etc.
>>"I don't think that the bottleneck is the sort of thing that AI is automating."
This is patently false on multiple levels. One, on a simple level automating paperwork frees up labor for more useful things they can do immediately. Two, the footprint of what AI can do is rapidly growing. Till 2 months ago, no one thought LLM's could command robots, and now voila [1]. Of course these capabilities will plateau somewhere, but it's clear the productivity curve hasn't even been explored yet.
At least in my city, housing is severely restricted by the cost and availability of labor. I want labor to be paid well, but I always want housing to be cheaper, the missing link is productivity.
The revenge effects of technologies are well known: email was great! It was faster and much cheaper than mailing letters. But it gave rise to spam and many types of fraud. The mobile phone is awesome. A powerful computer in your pocket. But now people, including teenagers, spend 12-16 hours each day staring into their mobile phones, doomscrolling towards Babylon. In 2006 people memorized dozens of phone numbers. Today? Maybe you remember 1-2 numbers.
What will be the revenge effects of LLMs and diffusion models? I sense that the revenge effects from these technologies will be much more substantial.
I don’t think the quality of that copper had anything to do with the tablets. Tablets only hold a record that an issue happened, and are otherwise uninvolved. It would be different if Ea-Nasir advertised his copper with clay tablets, but that’s not the story we know.
Well, all of the big jumps of technology that revolve around communication at least. While im sure some pedant could find an nth degree link, I dont think the cotton gin or steam engine led to increased spam in any direct way.
It's interesting to think about this expanded view of religion and how it interacts with nondiscrimination laws. The guy's beliefs (at least in the quotes in the article) seem like a good combination of well reasoned and sensible and core faith-like beliefs, so I'm glad they're protected. At the same time, I can imagine plenty of beliefs that would make me not want to hire someone. I know this one didn't go to court, but I wonder what tests courts use to draw the lines. What deeply held beliefs am I allowed to say make someone an idiot or jerk I don't want to hire, and what deeply held beliefs am I allowed to hold and want the state to protect?
There is a thing called Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications where an employer could discriminate against protected classes because the job description is so specific. Like if a church wanted to hire a new pastor, the job description requires the applicant to be Christian and likely a specific denomination, and any non-christian would be disqualified from the position. BFOQs must be spelled out in the job description to make it absolutely clear that the qualifications are necessary for the job. Also age, sex, and gender can be BFOQs like if the job description is for an acting role of a specific character. Race could potentially apply to something like an acting job too but that's a lot more of a dicey subject, like it would need to be absolutely critical to the production that a character is a specific race.
> Race could potentially apply to something like an acting job too but that's a lot more of a dicey subject, like it would need to be absolutely critical to the production that a character is a specific race.
Is this true? I would think that this conflicts with first amendment rights a bit.
for a crazier example.....hooters hire it's waitress as "entertainers/actresses" now to avoid alot of their rules that would be sexual discrimination anywhere else you serve shitty food.
It's race in all but name. They actually get around it by specifying everything about a person other than race, like skin color, accent or language skills.
If they need a Viet person for a role in a Vietnam War movie, they'll cast for "native or fluent Vietnamese speakers". Of course it's entirely plausible that a black guy is a fluent Vietnamese speaker but auditions are very subjective so good luck proving that the black guy played the role of NVA Soldier #1 better than the actual Vietnamese guy.
His beliefs are not currently protected. He filed a Title VII request, which was ultimately granted by his employer voluntarily. Because no court ruled that the employer had to grant the request, it is an open question whether Title VII protects them.
I would be shocked if, had the university declined, the courts ultimately ruled that it was protected. Congress is free to write laws protecting people against discrimination for various beliefs. But they law they have on the books now shouldn't be stretched to cover this.
It's worth understanding why sincerely held religious beliefs are such a big deal and in a different league from "strong personal convictions". It's because people who hold them generally are under and bound by two authorities: their state law and their church law (which might take many forms). If a person is in a position where they simply cannot abide both laws simultaneously, the state must yield. Otherwise the state is no protector of freedom.
A humanist may have strong, sincerely held beliefs, but he is not under any authority that compels those beliefs, so they aren't "religious". He is permitted by all his authorities to use AI. He just doesn't want to out of a private belief that it is somehow "wrong".
If your employer orders you to do something you believe is wrong, but you are not required to believe it is wrong by a higher authority, then your employment should terminate. Same as if you just didn't want to do your job, your employment would terminate. Title VII just isn't about that stuff.
This whole argument rubs me the wrong way. It requires the state to determine what a real religion is and isn't. And it removes equal protection, different people have the law applied to them in different ways depending on their religion.
Both of these seen to go against the first amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
It's an interesting bind, not at all unlike how some efforts to address racial discrimination end up being themselves racially discriminatory. So it's like, ok, is it ok sometimes or never?
I'd be fine if you argued that Title VII is unconstitutional for this reason. I like Title VII, but I see why it might be argued against on these grounds.
I get that "no religion" is a "religion" for the purposes of not discriminating based on which religion someone is. And if you want to distinguish humanism from "no religion", that's fine. But humanism doesn't bind anybody to believe anything. It's merely a descriptor of a set of beliefs. That's wholly unlike the major and minor religions of the world. If you're a humanist but are ok with AI, nobody and no thing has the authority to tell you you are wrong. Some people may have opinions to share to persuade you, but there is no authoritative answer from a person, text, tradition, or deity. That's the difference.
Courts don't like to wade into religious matters, precisely because of their deference to religious authorities, owing to the 1A. If your church declares you a "minister" be because you help lead kids' Sunday school lessons, SCOTUS is not going to debate that; they just take it as given.
But if you go to court and say, "well I'm a minister in my religion because I said so," that's not going to fly. You're free to exercise religion, not make things up and pretend like your private opinions are religiously imposed on you.
For exactly this reason, there are plenty of people from traditional religions who claim exemptions to things that I think are bad faith uses of Title VII.
It's very grey. Especially when it comes to newer religions. The LDS Church, for instance, was forced to give up polygamy before Utah could enter the union. The Scientologists have been very forceful at defending their faith. The Satanic Temple have done a good job of pushing back against localities which have tried to privilege the Abrahamic religions.
On the other hand, you have cases like the Native American Church which are allowed to use peyote as a sacrament, whereas other religions are not.
> You're free to exercise religion, not make things up and pretend like your private opinions are religiously imposed on you.
Isn't that how all religions start though? Someone claims to have received a message from the gods, and then converts others.
Employee: I need an accommodation. AI goes against my religious beliefs.
HR director, to employee's director: Does this guy use AI for anything currently? Do you need him to? If we grant this request, will it affect us negatively?
Employee's director: A couple people use AI. It's not required at all. Honestly, people don't know how to use it a lot of the time. Granting it would not change anything.
HR director, to employee's director: Okay, great. We've got 3 pending lawsuits right now and I don't think this guy would have a case anyway, but our legal bills are higher than we budgeted for. We have more important things to worry about.
HR director, to employee: Your accommodation request is granted.
Humanist organization press release: This is a landmark human rights case in American history.
Seems the religious people have a strong, sincerely held belief that they should follow a particular religious authority, and that seems to come outside of the religious authority itself. I guess I don't really buy this line of justification any more than just saying "because religion".
> “The process and work involved in thinking through situations, through my work, through my ethics, through the way I handle other people, is a key component in being able to develop myself as a moral person,” he told RNS in a video interview. “And offloading that labor, regardless of whether it’s taxing or not, is undercutting my ability to be a moral actor.”
Very true, 100% agree. I'm not saying we should get rid of AI, but we need to be aware of the dangers of relying on it too much.
Yes, because those things don't affect his work as a university researcher, which is where he is protesting the forced use of AI and asking for an exemption to that rule.
Either way, I don't think people should be playing zero-sum altruism olympic games. Different people are always concerned about different things, and the "line in the sand" will always be different depending on who you ask.
I could ask how you (or anyone) dare to use technology at all when it supports forced child labor from mining the raw materials to make computer chips and batteries, but what good would that do?
I've had the concern for years that AI users (or AI itself) will eventually consider non-AI users a pain, because humans will become inefficient in lots of workloads and management, sometimes causing things to come down to a screeching halt, relatively speaking.
We have to solidify laws protecting anti-AI-ers if that's their choice.
This happens today with all technology. AI is no different. If your coworker refuses to use a computer or the internet there are no laws protecting them. Nor should there be.
There's a limit, though. Not only are there mandatory breaks for truck drivers, but also a maximum number of working hours my boss is allowed to demand from me. And even within those limits my boss is not allowed to dispense cocaine during tight deadlines.
We do have limits for how much work a human is allowed to do and, based on the experience of Amazon workers, they are due for some tightening already. I'm not seeing a clear case for AI but I wouldn't discount it entirely either.
I don't think the problem is whether these limits apply to normal tools or not, the same way it doesn't really matter that speed limits technically apply to horses too [1].
I imagine a solution would be a knowledge worker's bill of rights that declares the amount of output that one can reasonably expect from a human. You could add some measurements like "a knowledge worker cannot be expected to understand and take responsibility for more than X printed pages of work per day", with the expectations that if your employees are overworked then the accountability falls on you.
Should we also have a transportation worker's bill of rights, that sets the reasonable output that one can expect from a human? Would it be reasonable to set that rate based on what a human can deliver on foot, unassisted by any vehicle?
The whole point of a tool is that it increases the amount of output we can expect from workers. Otherwise we'd still all be doing agriculture, because the farmer's bill of rights sets the maximum output of a farm and there's not enough surplus for non-farmers.
We do have a transportation worker's bill of rights. The vehicles may not tire but the drivers do, and therefore all truck drivers are entitled to mandatory rests. And self-driving cars (current ones, at least) have a similar issue: because the driver must be prepared to take the wheel at all times there's a whole bunch of "increased output" that they're not allowed to take advantage of, with a risk of serious jail time if they do.
IMO the key is risk: right now no one is taking responsibility of the AI errors (IMO by design), but the second we codify who's legally responsible for them we'll see calls for slowing down coming from those groups.
Hmm, I suppose I see it the opposite - it's important these limits don't apply to one specific instance, just as the citation points out problematic things still apply if it's a horse rather than a car. That doesn't seem an accident/mistake, but a key part of making the limitation meaningful and well formed.
Exclusion from society, and the object of anger at "those darn Luddites".
You can't tell an Amish he can't use physical coins. Or that his buggy is too slow for the roads (not highways), etc.
But the Amish are heavily excluded from society. Amish that refuse to use computers can't work most jobs. Amish that won't use credit cards can't buy things at cashless stores/restaurants. Amish that don't use electricity basically can't live in major cities.
Some places (including some places in the US) ban cashless stores. It seems reasonable to me to try to legally protect people who struggle to adapt to new technologies.
But the Amish are nonetheless protected. Not by the law but by having a community of people around them willing to live with those same restrictions and provide for each other. I think that's much more likely to happen than legal protection also in the AI case.
The Amish are even protected by law in some ways. They don't have to pay social security for one, which is more compatible with their lifestyle (they take care of their own).
Why? Whhy is some ingrate entitled to my money and resources for nothing? Why do you love robbery? If I want to deal with someone, I will deal with them. Cops are already the source of much misery dur to the special rights they have. The law already protects your right to association and trade, the right to speech, why do you want special laws for certain classes of people?
In much of the US, some types of highways do have a minimum speed. It varies by state (and can even vary within a state). I believe most places have a minimum on Interstates of 40 MPH.
Minimum speed requirement on most highways is 45 MPH regardless of vehicle type or licenses. You can't walk or ride a bike or moped down a highway either.
We exclude plenty of people from society, at least in the abstract. Someone who simply acts weird can be excluded from society. There are certainly no law which forces people to include them?
>the object of anger at "those darn Luddites"
Again, I'm not sure what kinds of laws could reasonably prevent this. Seems like we're all basically free to criticize one another for personal beliefs. If that wasn't the case, then 99% of social media would be in constant breach of the law lol
>You can't tell an Amish he can't use physical coins
Well, for one, laws protecting the acceptance of US currency aren't specific to Amish people based on their beliefs. It's more about protecting the value of US currency. And two, private companies are allowed to not accept physical currency. Plenty of companies only accept credit card, etc. That's legal. And Amish people wouldn't be able to purchase goods and services from such places.
Of course, the Amish typically don't care about that, because they're not typically in the market for the kinds of goods and services offered by such businesses. In contrast, someone who is happy to consume modern technology accept AI for arbitrary reasons seems like someone who is making interacting with society unnecessarily complicated and difficult.
>Or that his buggy is too slow for the roads (not highways), etc.
Well, as you've alluded to, if we deem that their beliefs would end up causing a significant enough issue to society, then their beliefs don't get to override the rules of society. Amish people are free to use buggies where appropriate because it's not a problem. They are not allowed to use buggies on highways because it would be a safety issue.
Regardless, they're not protected because of their beliefs. They're just operating within the rules of society. You don't have to be Amish to legally ride a buggy on the side of a road. These aren't special protections carved out for Amish people. Which, again, is the point of this discussion:
You stated "We have to solidify laws protecting anti-AI-ers if that's their choice," and I'm asking, "Protect them from what, exactly?"
"Exclusion from society" or being "the object of anger at "those darn Luddites"" are not things which laws can generally help with. Anti-AI people are free to not use AI, be vocal about their opposition to AI, and even (try to) exclude those who use AI from society or make them the object of anger with regards to AI usage. All of that is fair. It works both ways. None of it is dictated by law.
I dont want someone elses choices making my papperwork even slower and im sure most would agree, AI wont take charge of this but society? certainly will
We do protect them in some ways. People who don't want to use the internet should still have phone numbers to call, and they should still be able to go into a bank and store their money or cash their paycheques.
Why do you have rights and privleges that other people don't use?
The alternative is civil uprising and violence, the same as many other demographs and groups of people throughout history have caused because their government and society decided to ignore their demands.
Bullshit. I have the exact same rights as other citizens, my choosing to exercise them or not is irrelevant. Here people are talking about inventing special rights for some groups. If they hate human rights so much they should go to North Korea or Iran or Saudi. Their demands are fine, they can make whatever society they want, nobody is stopping them. What is not permissible is them having special rights others don't that are forcing others to do business with them and violating others free speech and free association. If they can't do that, they are not compatible with democracy and should go to an autocracy of their choice that enforces their beliefs.
Your premise is incorrect. They have a lifestyle based on their religion. It existed way before yours. You passing a law against a peaceful, highly prosperous, time-tested, religion-based lifestyle is unjust and oppressive.
You are the one talking about passing extra laws against peaceful users of a new technology. If the Amish disagree with the same rights for everyone, they are free to move out into countries without universal rights.
Freedom never meant that the society much be changed to accommodate you. You're free from persecution (Conditions apply), you're free to behave the way you want, to associate with who you want. Likewise, Society is free to not associate with you and move in a different direction.
I kind of feel like this is a non-story. The ask was small and reasonable. It was easy enough to grant the accommodation and avoid a confrontation. HR in companies does this all the time.
I don’t actually think it’s the first time. I recall seeing articles like this in college. A lot of groups love to do victory laps before they’ve ever gotten to the field.
It’s like every article that says a judge blocked X, Y, or Z but the decision is overturned on appeal two days later.
One college granted a trivial accommodation with no government review or legal analysis. They did not make any policy changes.
I think the college made the right decision. It’s easier to grant it than to try to figure out if it’s legally justified.
I guess my take is they didn’t prove anything and they’re trying to make everyone think they did.
Where is the limit of human thinking? This late 2025 - till now models give to some real philosophical questions that are not thought experiments anymore, imagining the matrix or the 1984 depiction was a cool thing to imagine, but feeling your humanity taken away from you in the present is heartbreaking.
LLMs aren't some next step in the evolution of intelligence, they are even explicitly designed not to be. That a word-calculator which has no emotions, goals or continuity of consciousness can, by brute-force-throwing-things-at-the-wall-to-see-what-sticks, solve some problems that were presumed to require intelligence isn't "liberating" at all.
It could be comical, if there weren't so many deluded cultists worshipping that word calculator and wanting to turn control of all society over to it, and insisting that anyone who rejects them will be "left behind" in the capitalistic rat race to the bottom, which is the only thing that can ever matter.
In 1000 years, I am sure that the descendants of humanity will be either
a) non-existent
b) actually intelligent machines, that will preserve in themselves all that is great about our culture, while discarding some of the more ugly parts, free to explore the universe without need for things like gravity or oxygen, able to sleep for centuries as they travel at relativistic speeds between the stars
c) Shoggoths mindlessly babbling to themselves as they code the eleventy-trillionth new mobile app so that somewhere a number can go up
I don’t see how one can live in a world where machines are solving and making headway on Millennium Prize problems and say the above with a straight face.
What do you think the use of mathematics was to society st latge and ehy do you think mathematical and engineering societies outcompteted and dominated those without?
Are you implying that there's a meaningful population of people that are against reasonable accommodation for individuals' religious beliefs? There's a very big difference between prescribed religion in the workspace and an individual's beliefs requiring a slight adjustment by the employer to respect.
Depends what you mean by a meaningful population. There are definitely people who think religious accommodations are wrong in principle. There are definitely people who are hostile to religion in general. How many? I have no idea.
Yes I am implying exactly that. This is a very frequent topic of debate.
- People refusing vaccination requirements in schools, offices, the military.
- Pharmacists refusing to fill certain prescriptions (like birth control).
- Restaurant owners refusing to serve gay people.
- Kids (well, their parents) refusing to study certain topics in school.
Are you implying that there isn't a "meaningful population" that is against some of these?
There are thousands of religions each with their own set of beliefs. Many of them directly conflict with each other, and with societal laws. You can make up a "religious exemption" for literally anything, and they are selectively allowed based on how the majority religion tolerates the thing.
There are also people who believe you shouldn't be allowed to wear a head scarf or turban. Or be allowed to pray five times a day.
Of note, every single one of your examples impacts multiple people in significant ways. None of them are people just wanting to practice their faith in isolation. I think the cases you describe aren't really analogous.
There is a really interesting point that I think you're getting at, but choosing well known and already politically charged examples undermines the discussion by bringing cognitive dissonance in at the ground floor.
What about an example where religious belief fundamentally excludes someone from doing the actual job? Suppose a Muslim wants a job as a bartender, but refuses to actually serve people drinks because they consider it a violation on the rule against alcohol. Should the bar grant them a religious exemption and just accept that they won't be serving alcoholic beverages when that person's the bartender on duty?
Or what if two different religious beliefs come into direct conflict? Suppose a Jehovah's Witness whose manager is also a JW decides to leave the religion. Jehovah's Witnesses consider shunning apostates to be a religious commandment, so their manager might feel obligated to fire them. Is that OK?
Depending on how we resolve those conflicts, perhaps people can at least agree that there should be limits to religious exemptions, even if they don't agree on the specifics. But perhaps that's at least a starting point for a conversation. And perhaps from there we can extend out to Durham's position.
-doctors refusing to abide by the World Professional Association of Transgender Health Standard of Care's Standards of Care for Hormone Replacement Therapy and Gender Confirming Surgeries
TIL that WPATH was founded in 1979 in Illinois to "promote evidence-based care, education, research, advocacy, public policy, and respect in transgender health"
It just shows how progressive and, sorry to bring this up, socialist the US has been historically. Truly a beacon of hope in a world mired in prejudice and dogma.
Not the guy you replied to, but I assume they are saying the examples are typical of the current right wing. Though antivaxxers are also represented a bit on the left. Just not as prominently today.
I'm not him, but I would guess that he would respond by saying that we have a moral and ethical responsibility to remain in control of what we're putting into the world. If there's a conflict between the given timelines and how quickly a human can understand the problem and the implications of the decision being made, then the thing that needs to budge is the timeline.
Standing by morals and ethical responsibilities is hard, it takes mental and physical energy and there are plenty of ethical fights we all have to concede every day as a result. But at the “society” level, I think this sort of rhetoric just leads us further down the hole. We can continue to fight the battles that we have the willpower and means to fight, and that’s a very individual decision. Principled people with high tolerance for bullshit (seemingly like the guy in TFA) can make a lot of difference, IMO.
> Principled people with high tolerance for bullshit (seemingly like the guy in TFA) can make a lot of difference
> great for him until the goals given him are unachievable, in the given timelines, by human thinking and reasoning alone.
Sorry but as much as I would like to agree with what you are saying managers, CEOs, shareholders and everyone that connects that chain won't ever care about ethics or morals when it comes to making a buck or getting one over the competition. Not in the system we are in.
This just reminds me of the whole bun fiasco. If your manager asks you to rewrite a years-old codebase in a week for immediate deployment, is it not acceptable to push back?
If you work in a regulated industry, or even just if your product has had a tough relationship with incidents of late, that makes this kind of push back even more defensible.
then someone needs to explain the military-industrial complex, sweatshops, industrial animal farming and many more practices which seemingly are incredibly profitable despite (because?) being compeltely immoral
He probably has a lot to say on the topic, but it’s not up to him. The accommodations only extend to reasonable affordances, but do not entirely exempt the person from requirements to perform to the level of expectation for the job.
There's nothing in the article to suggest that performance of his actual duties as an administrator have been called into question. The issue under contention, as the article frames it, is the University trying to dictate the details of how that work gets done.
There are some who would call that micro-management.
I don't think that projecting opinions that you don't think are reasonable upon someone who didn't actually say those things, or clinging tightly to the Goomba fallacy with phrases like "guys like the one in the article", will get you very far toward understanding what he actually said.
Which is self-defeating. If you don't make a good faith effort to understand what he said then you're leaving yourself in a poor position to credibly argue against it.
They're not talking to us, they're crafting a viral e/acc tweet. I admit I don't quite understand the point of doing that deep in an HN comment thread, but once you realize what's happening you see it a lot. Perhaps if you read too much viral ragebait it starts to be your default mode of communication.
So those goals and timelines should be reconsidered; If a civil engineering firm slapped up a bridge as quickly and cheaply as possible with no concern for quality, they would cease to exist. We have no standards for software quality, and therefore anything that accelerated the perceived output is enthusiastically adopted without consideration for any future consequences.
Weinberg’s Law --
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization.
Exactly. I would also argue that WE DON'T NEED more software, WE DON'T NEED more features, what US, humanity, needs is MORE RELIABLE software, with less bugs, that is stable.
Big tech want to tell us that AI is great because it can write code faster than what a human can, the problem is that code is shit, is full of bugs, and is not maintainable.
Reason why my company decided to stop using AI for code that gets delivered to customers, the customer find bugs, he is not happy, you have to use time to fix bugs (for free, because it's under warranty), so we waste time, and produce code that is not easy to evolve. And even if AI is faster to write code, developers are less motivated to work, so they will just waste time on the internet while being focused on the task, and thus again, there is really no save of money.
To me all of this doesn't make sense, we want to use AI to make the work instead of US, but even if we achieve in that the result of it gives benefits only to an handful of people that are already too much rich, while the world gets polluted with all the CO2 that is produced by AI tokens, people looses jobs and gets poorer. This idea to me needs to be opposed.
I assume the standards you're referring to are things like The MISRA guidelines, or the IEC standards (specifically 62304). In my experience, these are applied in very "check-the-box" ways that often undermine their intent; Very very few organizations take software safety seriously.
Imagine a civil engineer that refuses to use a computer of any kind for his work. How much do you trust scribbled long division?
Edit: what about a civil engineer that refuses to use steel. Or Arabic numerals. Or a construction worker that refuses to use power equipment. A delivery man who swears off wheels.
mattw2121's hypothetical is about timelines and quality. As long as said Civil Engineer can deliver quality work within our allocated timeline, he can do long division in binary scribbled in sand for all I care.
While I agree with you at some level, I can't help thinking of the Amish. They impose plenty of restrictions on themselves and still manage to flourish. There must be a way that is different than simply accepting "progress".
This is even more true when "progress" means fertility rates collapse. A culture that is not self sustaining will die, and far more quickly than most realize. It doesn't matter how awesome that culture is for a brief moment in time, it will cease to exist.
Amish have an overall fertility rate around 6, which is why there are now almost half a million Amish in America alone. They had less than half that in 2000. In a few decades, they'll number in the millions. If people don't start having babies then groups like the Amish will take over the world, very much turning "the meek shall inherit the Earth" into a completely fulfilled prophecy. In some ways it's perhaps even a self fulfilling one if it turns out that 'non-meek' behaviors result in unsustainable societies.
The Amish are an exception, one of the rare ones (along with the handful of protected, isolated tribes). The rule is that a technologically inferior group will get rolled over by a technologically superior one for the benefit of the latter.
Iranians are quite technologically good and don't seem to haave any issues against technology. That they kansged to get so advanced despite being continually attacked and under crippling sanctions is astounding.
> Until the goals given him are unachievable, in the given timelines, by human thinking and reasoning alone.
Would that not be tantamount to constructive dismissal? Consider: you may have your prayer times during the day, but they will be counted against you in performance evaluations.
> but they will be counted against you in performance evaluations.
That was my initial thought: he may get his exemption from use, but TFA doesn’t indicate that he will be evaluated differently during performance review.
To go one step further, would such allowances have to be accompanied by different performance standards, like oral exams for students with dyslexia also have increased time limits?
Or would the allowances be granted for the duration of employment, the latter being shortened due to performance problems?
Exactly. The person or people above him who wanted AI to be used against his will will ultimately achieve their goals---no matter what his beliefs are. At the end of the day, his views of humanism are futile against the force of those in favor of AI acceptance.
> This invention, O king, will make the Egyptians wiser and will improve their memories; for it is an elixir of memory and wisdom that I have discovered.
Unsurprisingly history repeats itself, there will always be people who reject the unknown for the comforts of the past.
Lots of strawmanning going on with comments about where the line gets drawn and talking about driving stick, heating his home, etc.
If you read the article, you will see that the concern is with his direct actions concerning ethics and moral, especially with interactions with others (as an admin).
There is plenty to unpack with this as it is a new concept. I'm hoping we can have a real discussion about this. For example, will this religious exemption become moot if productivity is sufficiently higher with AI giving employers an easy out? If that does happen, do we think we'll see adverse effects such as baked in biases in a hidden process?
One thing I am concerned with with AI is that everything will follow Google and Meta when it comes to things like appeals and fair treatment. There area ton of stories about people getting banned/deleted with no recourse and no insight into why. I can see this same sort of totalitarian activity spreading to other aspects of life, like finance, medical billing, etc.
> For example, will this religious exemption become moot if productivity is sufficiently higher with AI giving employers an easy out?
For this person’s job at an academic institution, I doubt it. This specific case feels very symbolic from start to finish: His management probably mandated AI use because they felt the need to do something about AI, and he used this as a perfect opportunity to stage a protest against AI. Knowing what I know about academic institutions, I suspect AI would have very little impact on productivity.
Many jobs might be the same: AI’s productivity impact can be large on a small set of tasks, but if those tasks were only 10% of someone’s hours at work then a couple people refusing AI will not make a difference to the whole department.
Workloads also flow to people who are good at that work, so the work that benefits from AI would be distributed to the AI users and more of the non-AI work would go to the few people who don’t use AI. It can be self-balancing when the number of refusals is small.
There are jobs where it’s not going to work out, though. If most of someone’s job is accelerated a lot by AI and they refuse to use that accelerator, it’s going to be really hard to avoid failing behind.
Companies do not have to retain employees who need accommodations that are not reasonably compatible with the work. AI is a hot topic and everyone has strong feelings about it, so it can help to think back to other technology leaps and consider what it would be like if your coworkers refused to use them.
What if you had a coworker who refused to use email and would only communicate on the phone? It could technically be done, but they would fall so far behind and produce enough hardship for their coworkers that it wouldn’t be a reasonable request for most office jobs. The laws do not force companies to accommodate requests that are unreasonable for the work.
I can already think of jobs where refusing to use any AI tools would put someone at so much of a disadvantage that it couldn’t be justified. That set of jobs is small today, but it’s growing.
> His management probably mandated AI use because they felt the need to do something about AI, and he used this as a perfect opportunity to _stage a protest against AI._
I think you're missing the point. This isn't a protest, this is someone exercising their constitutional rights. It's a matter of people being able to freely choose how they may live within the state and society's constraints. Our bosses shouldn't be able to so easily tell us to violate our own morals for the company's bottom line.
Apple ought to be made to ask their users to confirm (opt-in) whether they want their AI/Siri/Intelligence/<or whatever they decide at any given time> and everyone else should be provided with a slimmer OS and slimner OTA updates.
It is very weird that University of Kentucky is asking research administrators to incorporate AI in its workflow. It’s one thing for a Silicon Valley startup to ask SWE to use AI to maximize speed of development, its another thing entirely for a University insulated from competition, with a small admin staff, asking them to use AI for what exactly?
How much additional productivity do they think admin staff can crank out, and does that even matter. Does a 100X more productive research administrator mean the University will not be “left behind”, in this new world. I think we are officially reaching mass hysteria phases of the AI revolution.
Even if this was true, it is very weird. When was the last time, institutions and bosses ask their employees to use a specific tool? It’s more often that employees fall in love with a tool and ask institutions to pay for it, here’s it’s the exact opposite
We were asked to migrate from Zoom to Teams recently. We have to use git and GitHub. Recently, there's a mandate to migrate from Jenkins to GitHub Actions. We have to use Windows or Mac, no Linux. We have to have the corporate VPN and antivirus running. And so on, and so on.
Perhaps that's why office jobs seem less productive than ever, since the invention of the computer... The usual meritocracy of the workers choosing their own tools is upset by top-down planning by insufficiently experienced people, having to bear no consequences for their choices.
Some of these issues came up with the Australian prisoner who was denied vegemite, and while Australia is different, there are similar questions involved because secular western societies are all moving in the same direction.
The fundamental issue is that historically only religious belief, that actually subscribed to a religion with a god, was considered sincere. But since then it’s become clear that many non religious people hold equally sincere ethical beliefs. The current standard being converged upon by courts, as mentioned in the article is:
> “It has to be a deeply held ethical commitment that’s analogous to a religious commitment,”
Because no one wants to go and change all the laws to replace religious belief with the above, wherever a court sees religious belief they can essentially sub in the above language.
But this has led to awful articles where media will often, after a ruling in favor of a secular belief which the courts will rule as a religious belief as a shorthand, announce that the secular belief itself is considered a religion.
This misunderstanding reached its apotheosis, perhaps, in the Alabama case mentioned in the article, where a federal judge fell for the semantic mislabeling and declared humanism to be a religion, which it isn’t.
However, that legal standard gives humanists a whole lot of newfound rights, so I don’t see anyone pushing back against it.
What are trying to say exactly? That only beliefs in a god or gods are really religion? But that any strongly held set of principles is given the same benefits by law as a real religion? What’s the point? If it is treated like a religion by people and by law, who cares if it involves believing in a god, or many, or none??
Religion is metaphysical, ethics are not. Simulation theory might pass as a religion, opposition to animal testing doesn't. Of course the latter does involve a moral axiom but one a lot more simple than religion's vast bundled sets of axioms in scripture...
Where is the line? "AI" is completely arbitrary, might as well say a calculator is immoral because it offloads thinking. That my main issue with these people is that they think AI/LLMs are different than everything that came before them, yes they are more capable but all of computing has involved "offloading" effort/thought to computers. `
Sorites doesn't actually refute the OP. The paradox is rooted in a failure to distinguish between aggregates and integral wholes. A heap is not really a natural kind or an integral whole. It is just a convenient label to describe a vague range of collections for practical purposes, but it is not what you a "thing" in its own right. There is no intrinsic tendency of a heap to be a heap, whereas in integral wholes there are. You cannot draw a line between a heap and a non-heap, because there is no such thing as a heap in any objective sense. There is no essential difference, only an accidental one.
Computers and computer programs are much more like heaps than integral wholes. There is no essential difference between what we conventionally call "AI" and any other computer program. The manner in which we have cordoned off "AI" from "non-AI" has more to do with human purposes and perspectives rather than any objective facts on the ground.
The difference between the Sorites paradox and the continuum fallacy is explained right there in the section on the continuum fallacy that I linked to.
I realize that's embedded within a larger page on the Sorites paradox instead of being given its own page, but I'm not super interested in being that preoccupied with Wikipedia's editorial decisions.
> "And offloading that labor, regardless of whether it's taxing or not, is undercutting my ability to be a moral actor."
The objection in the article is specifically about offloading thinking to technology, which is something we've been doing for decades, or depending on your definition, since we first started using tools.
If offloading cognitive labor is the core problem, then what makes AI fundamentally different from the countless other technological advances that have allowed us to offload cognitive labor?
We haven't been offloading thinking. We have been offloading the calculation. Someone had to think to implement a system in the past. The system abided by those constraints, or could be checked against them as it was deterministic (vast majority). AI is non-deterministic and presents a shift to where people are using it like a magic 8-ball to think for them, even if the mechanism is probablistic calculation of word patterns.
By chopping out the first sentence of the quote, you lose the context of exactly what kind of labor he's talking about. Which is useful if you want to construct a strawman version of his argument by suggesting he might be morally opposed to four function calculators, too, but not so useful if the goal is to engage with the (presumably incomplete) version of his position that the article presents in good faith.
So let's look at that preceding sentence so that we can get a better sense of what kind of labor he was talking about:
> The process and work involved in thinking through situations, through my work, through my ethics, through the way I handle other people, is a key component in being able to develop myself as a moral person.
"thinking through situations", "my ethics", "the way I handle other people", "develop myself as a moral person". This doesn't read to me like he's taking a Butlerian Jihad-type position that humans have a moral responsibility to do their own arithmetic. We're clearly talking about higher-level, more abstract thinking and decision-making that might carry real moral weight.
And that brings us to a difference that I think he might be seeing but that you seemed to be claiming does not exist when you said, "My main issue with these people is that they think AI/LLMs are different than everything that came before them." GPT-style decoder LLMs are the first time we've ever really seen people trying to rely on computers to make abstract and open-ended decisions such as drawing up business plans, drafting memoranda, or doing deep research-type tasks on any sort of scale.
I think that you're probably aware that there is a a noticeable difference between how people are thinking about LLMs now versus how they did back when GPT 2.0 was the latest and greatest. The fact that we can construct a hypothetical continuum of possible models between GPT 2.0 and GPT 3.5 Turbo and suggest that, in this counterfactual scenario, it might not be possible to draw a hard line that cleanly separates the tech itself into two discrete categories, is fundamentally missing the point. His concern was never stated to be about the technology itself; it was about how he was being asked to use it.
Exactly. Recent LLMs are in a different category and it's disingenuous to pretend they're not. Wherever you decide to draw the line, GPT-3 and more advanced chatbots are clearly on the far side of it.
The average person was able to look at the devices up until now and see a tool. Now they see something they don't understand, but sure does seem smarter than they are, and has the aesthetics of being a person on the other side of the computer.
Do you think this guy has the technical depth to make these connections? He's working off what he can see, and he will likely grow old and die still lacking that understanding. So will a vast majority of users of these services.
What you are seeing is people realigning with a baseline of their reality. They have to trust what they are being told on this by someone, and they need to figure out who and how amid malicious actors that are trying to bend their beliefs.
There isn't one. There's a story involving Socrates criticizing writing, arguing that it weakens memory, borrows wisdom, and is impossible to argue with interactively.
This specific circlejerk has blessed this industry a number of times already as well. People first became idiots thanks to higher level languages, then thanks to syntax highlighting, then thanks to IntelliSense.
It's a wretched trope that's been with us forever, and will probably never go away. The worst part is that it isn't even entirely meritless, just incomplete.
Yeah, and is this person going to turn down becoming a manager, ever, because they'll have to delegate the actual solution to someone else? Or are they going to micromanage them due to their ethical commitments?
I mean... this is exactly why I've avoided becoming a manager in the past. I will accept being responsible for my own work, but I don't want to be accountable for someone else's work.
And by the same token, if my job turns around and requires me to do something I don't want to do, I would quit. Or try to get fired, if I was feeling spiteful.
I'm not arguing on this guy's behalf, I only made a comment.
I'm definitely resentful that I have to use AI to stay relevant, and wish it never came into existence, but religious exemptions shouldn't exist. If a law or rule isn't important enough for everyone to follow, it shouldn't be a rule or law.
I remember when in Iain M. Banks Culture Novels (I think it was _Consider Phlebas_), the heroine and its drone talk about the "Humanist" movement of a planet they visit incognito as a extremist anti-machine movement... (It is just in passing, the situation in the Culture novels is quite different from the Dune universe).
Can we please just look at LLMs like what they are and not some fantastical threat?
The fearmongering has cooked a lot of people's understanding of this stuff (and I wouldn't place the blame on them given the news they're likely consuming about AI).
"Play stupid games, win stupid prizes" is apt here. We don't need to return to mud huts and smoke signals because we can approximate intelligence.
I didn't get the impression that the man here was looking at LLMs as some fantastical threat. It seems like his concern was about offloading his thinking and decision making to AI, which seems pretty non-fantastical.
Can't that be done without a performative "religious exemption"? You don't need that to say "yeah, I'm not using this stuff." I imagine in practice all this will accomplish is pissing people off who are already stressed about AI.
I think I understand what you mean, but to me the exemption doesn't seem performative. It seems like the equivalent of him talking to his employer and having them agree to not force him to use tech he is concerned about, he just used a particular legal avenue to justify it as part of that discussion. It may be performative in the sense that it also got attention (e.g., in the form of this article), but in this case even that part of it seems like it could be a useful precedent for others who may be considering a similar route.
Then again, maybe even seeing it as _slightly_ performative, potentially, is overly pessimistic. It may seem performative simply because it's novel, but if he legitimately considers this part of his religious beliefs and his employer (seemingly) agrees, what is performative about exercising his rights like many other people of other religions do?
Right, but does a business/company owe you the right to never require usage of AI to do your job (and by extension, owe you that job under those terms)?
I did not take that position. You asked if US citizens could refuse AI without religious exemption, possibly suggesting the dramatics are unnecessary, and I answered that I could not.
Was he being forced or compelled to offload his thinking to a machine?
I probably don’t share his sentiments, but that’s no different from being compelled to think in certain mandated ways (offloading being just a particular case of it), which is certainly a bad idea. If that was the case, I find it weird that he used a religious exemption mechanism, but glad he can act and think freely, the way he desires.
However, he may not have a choice of tool use or peers, and be compelled to send work to, or process results done by a non-human system, if that’s a part of his organization system (external to him with regards to duties and responsibilities). To grant him an exemption would be to discriminate upon others, no different how he can’t refuse to work with, say, a Satanist. Or a cyborg transhumanist. If that’s the case and he just refuses to feed his thinking (his part of the job) to an AI (not his part of the job), then that’s him being a zealot pushing his religious views on others. In such a case, I can quite clearly see why he went for a religious exemption, huh.
His own part of the job, his responsibilities - yes, of course he can’t be compelled on how he does it. Anything outside of that - nope, his religious beliefs end there, not his thinking - not for him to say how to do it, or refuse to interact.
AI for me I just another balancing act. Lean too hard on it and it will be noticeable and detrimental, lean to hard away from it and you’ll be left behind by those who learn how to balance it.
> “It has to be a deeply held ethical commitment that’s analogous to a religious commitment,” he said. “That’s a fact question that presumably the employer will investigate.”
I’m curious if the opposite would work:
“As a transhumanist my religion compels me to share everything with my machines, otherwise they can’t ensure my mind uploading is up to date “
I see no reason transhumanism is any less of a religion than humanism.
> I see no reason transhumanism is any less of a religion than humanism.
TBH I agree. Religious exemptions at large only exist for the big name religions but the arguments pushed often make claims about it being a moral/ethical precedent and its just not true. I think its a matter of PR and politics if you're able to get an exemption kind of same game as a lot of things.
We see this with people who believe it is a religious requirement to share their faith at work, even when their co-workers say they don't want to hear it.
We see this with people who say their religious belief says they don't take orders from a women, even if that woman is their boss.
If your transhumanist religion compels you to share PII with your machines in a way which breaks the law, then there's likely an undue burden.
If it means you need access to a power plug during lunch so your devices can scan your brain for 10 minutes - almost certainly not an undue burden.
> If your transhumanist religion compels you to share PII with your machines in a way which breaks the law, then there's likely an undue burden.
Some modern recording laws are not made with a machine component in mind, even if that machine is a local first-party system and does not actually store anything long-term or propagate information any further. A cyborg-identifying person with a wearable speech processor may rightfully argue such laws are unfairly preventing their functioning, as they’re lacking an important distinction.
The Civil Rights Act which created the EEOC does not require or permit an employer to break the law to accommodate a request, even if it is reasonable and with no burden.
I wonder if you can object to using most AI on religious grounds as Claude, Grok, and ChatGPT are produced by and are made in the image of effectively pro-extinction death cults. Honestly, it makes me feel slimy and uneasy using them when I consider that they are basically cult manufactured artifacts designed to influence society according to their religious beliefs.
Why not? Religious freedoms are about deeply held beliefs. It's not like a judge will evaluate the bible or quran to check if something is or isn't a religious freedom based on what someone's deity of choice supposedly stated.
Wait till the "where's the line" boosters learn groups like the Amish who have mostly drawn a line. They'll be clamoring for legal loopholes to steal the land from those luddites so that they can buid the future on it!
So what do you do if your company hires an engineer and on the first day they say "I am Amish and cannot touch a computer"? Give them a religions exemption? What then? Are you obligated to pay their salary for the rest of their life?
> Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for an applicant or employee whose sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance conflicts with a work requirement, *unless providing the accommodation would create an undue hardship for the employer.*
If using a computer is necessary for the job, then the religious exemption would create undue hardship. Presumably for this Kentucky guy's job he can get his work done without AI and the university isn't suffering for it.
Let's say your company makes holes. The year is 2026 so you use excavators because they are good at digging holes quickly. Would you hire a guy who refuses to use an excavator but will happily use a shovel?
My argument that you seem to have completely missed: If the guy with the shovel is already satisfying 100% of my hole digging needs, why would I spend the extra money for an excavator?
Computers were introduced overnight. One Monday the engineer went to work, and bang! There is a computer waiting for him, deal with it or go find another job. People at that time not joked around, were too busy building affordable houses, medicine, education, groceries and childcare. No way they would put up with some snowflakes who has some "beliefs" get in the way of creating all that societal goods.
You filter out any such applicant with digital applications for digital postings requiring proficiency with digital tools.
Any such potential candidate passing these is then given an interview in which technical questions relevant to the question are asked.
I'm really not sure how you imagine a luddite makes it all the way to their first day to drop some weird "oh, I can't actually do this job btw" bomb.
Even supposing they do, they have a job description requiring that they perform certain tasks that are within the realm of reasonable expectations as set by the government.
Someone in a wheelchair isn't going to get hired for any "must be able to regularly lift and move weights over 50 pounds" job just because of equal employment opportunity as they can't perform the legally allowed requirements.
Read up on EEOC regulation and you'll see your example won't fly. Exceptions must be reasonable and not cause undue hardship on the employer.
"An accommodation may cause undue hardship if it is costly, compromises workplace safety, decreases workplace efficiency, infringes on the rights of other employees, or requires other employees to unwillingly do more than their share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work." - https://www.eeoc.gov/religious-discrimination
Otherwise we would all be joining a religion which require 360 days of religious festivities each year.
Who says they haven't touched a computer for years? There's no requirement for your beliefs to be consistent. Otherwise there wouldn't be a single religious person left in the world. You can interview on a computer and reveal your religious preferences on the first day of the job.
> There's no requirement for your beliefs to be consistent
I would bet money a judge would argue that inconsistent/arbitrary beliefs are in fact not "sincerely held" beliefs as defined under Title VII.
Also, SCOTUS made a ruling in 2023 that a business is allowed to take "undue hardship" into consideration for the company as a whole, meaning they can still fire (or not hire) you if your beliefs would be detrimental to the success of the business.
The fact that all this stuff is easily accessible online and yet some people think they can just out-logic the law is mind-boggling to me. Oh, you never studied law in your life but you're criticizing a 60-year old law that has been hashed out over and over again? Dunning-Kruger strikes again.
Agreed... I feel like this is many people in general though (and esp. online forums/social media where people like to act smart); always with the armchair experts confidently stating uneducated guesses as dogma.
And the Dunning-Kruger effect also applies to "smart" people. You don't stop when you're estimating your ability correctly; as you learn more, you gain more awareness of your ignorance and continue being conservative with your self-estimates.
Yeah but you realize that religious exemptions aren’t just automatically rubber stamped? That employers can deny them on the basis of lack of sincerity? How realistic is it that someone can have a career with computers, and then on the first day of the job, prove that they’ve gone all-in on an anti-computer religion?
There are a lot of weird ways interviews are done. I wouldn't be surprised if someone's interview process didn't screen for is someone even an engineer.
Though nothing about the Amish prohibits being a computer using engineer. Their rejection of technology is a lot more nuanced.
>Federal courts have ruled that humanism qualifies as a religion. As a result, she said, humanists have the same rights as other faith groups under federal law.
Hmmm, sounds a bit ripe for exploitation, no?
>In his interview with RNS, Durman said that being a humanist means being present and paying attention to others. Using AI conflicts with that.
Does this mean I can submit complaints against the companies I work for when I'm being told to respond via email or Slack? This seems pretty far removed from my humanist perspective up being present and paying attention to others, especially when you consider the various automations and abstractions which go into that kind of communication.
Like, I know it's obtuse, but I really don't see a logical issue with someone being a humanist and sincerely believing that communicating in anyway which isn't face-to-face goes against their beliefs. And that's just one example.
>“Substituting automated machine processing for human presence, authentic listening, and personal responsibility in my work directly conflicts with my obligation to uphold human dignity and flourishing as primary,” he wrote in a letter to the University of Kentucky’s Office of Equal Opportunity.
I'm sure this guy is being sincere and somewhat reasonable with his logic, but I know people who would feel justified in pushing this way past AI if they felt it was likely to get them anywhere. Like, how can you not use the same exact reasoning to push against using other forms of modern technology?
>The letter cited Durman’s personal beliefs as well as the 2003 version of the Humanist Manifesto, which details humanist principles and beliefs. Those beliefs include the importance of freedom of conscience and human flourishing.
Hell, at what point is being forced to work in order to survive in completely opposition to this belief system? When can I start saying that my employer's expectation that I'm in the office every day is in opposition to "human flourishing"?
>Durman told RNS his work involves helping researchers at the university with grant applications and that he can do the work without the help of AI. And not using AI won’t affect his co-workers, he said.
We'll see about that. Maybe, right now, this is the case. But even moderate expectation for AI usage in the future makes this suspect. When everyone is getting 90% of their work done completely autonomously through their agents, but they're still waiting on you to respond to an email from a day ago, then will this still be the case?
>For Durman, the accommodation process was much simpler. Durman sent the letter, and then he and Huiskens met with officials at the university. “It was a very collegial meeting, and they found that there was no undue burden to David’s department,” Huiskens said. “They granted the accommodation promptly.”
Well I'm unironically happy that they were able to work this out easily. But I really doubt this will be smooth sailing indefinitely, especially as other roles which are more affected by AI end up being "targeted" in the same ways.
As a software engineer, I dread the thought of working with co-workers who just refuse to use AI based on arbitrary principals. It's one thing for them to reason that they work better without AI; it's another thing to just say that you don't agree with using the technology and everyone needs to accommodate you.
Well I'm sure I haven't said anything that everyone else hasn't immediately thought/posted, but I'm genuinely curious about these things. It seems rather important that everyone is on the same page with regards to what their rights are with respect to choosing to not use a technology like this.
Curious where the line lands in practice. Does the exemption cover AI baked into stuff he can't avoid, like spam filtering or the WAF in front of every request, or only tools he'd actively prompt?
You can stand up to AI and claim it is against humanist beliefs, and you could also look for conflict-free CPUs for your computer and business[0]. Those are both actions a moral agent could take - why did he choose that action? I like humanism and am currently reading a book on it - but I think I have a very different interpretation than this professor or you.
I read about the cobalt mines in college. I care. If it comes off as snarky, maybe you should have empathy for enslaved people in Africa instead of peons being replaced in first-world countries.
Is the man from the original article mentioned anywhere in the article you linked, or is that just whataboutism and speculation about the man in question and his beliefs?
Modernity has always been about abstraction and specialisation. If he's so humanist, he must also want to make his own food and his own car because after all, you are offloading your thinking to the underlying companies.
You actually cannot. There are standards to meet to qualify as a true religious exemption. There have been many court cases where people tried to claim religious beliefs when convenient for them, which were denied because they couldn’t meet the threshold for being a real religious belief.
There are also limitations on what accommodations can be requested. If you took a job mowing lawns and then had a religious belief against harming living plants, you wouldn’t collect paychecks while you watched your coworkers mow lawns. They would have to find other work for you if they could, like raking leaves or lawnmower maintenance. If they didn’t have that work, then you wouldn’t have a job.
The raking leaves example was to make a point. For a programming job you could be exempted from using AI tools to do the work, but you would still have to do the work at a reasonable standard.
I didn't make myself clear. I'm against the concept of asking for exception from something based on your religious beliefs. I didn't mean that you can ask for virtually anything.
> For a programming job you could be exempted from using AI tools to do the work, but you would still have to do the work at a reasonable standard.
Plenty of programmers don't work at a reasonable standard; See, for example, every security incident ever, proliferation of slow electron apps, commercial software that flat-out doesn't work properly.
I’m glad you’ve never written any bugs into your software. If only we could all be that perfect.
However the standard for performance is relative to reasonable expectations for someone in that role. Typically relative to peers within the company. If one person is unable to do their job to within a reasonable level relative their peers even with reasonable accommodations, accommodations do not require the company to continue employing them anyway.
This is not true. The accommodation is only possible if it doesn't present undue hardship, safety concerns, etc. Plenty of accommodations can be denied on those grounds.
You could answer that yourself. To qualify this first ask what are the criteria for a person to establish a valid religious exemption request and then what are the criteria for a regulating body or employer to deny the exemption according to that criteria.
Also, some institutions have much wider latitude to deny a variety of religious exemption requests than other due to environmental hazards and safety concerns.
I disagree. At the moment religious exemptions are almost always granted only to the majority religions, or at least views that the majority religions find acceptable. If you started applying the law fairly the whole thing would immediately fall apart.
- Jehovah’s Witnesses and others refusing to swear oaths, even in court
Of course many of these had to be fought for in court, but courts are very amenable to the earnestly held beliefs of minority religious groups in the US. We don’t have a state religion.
"... there are circumstances where a tight-fitting respirator must be worn, such as when a worker is exposed to an atmosphere that is immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH), defined as "...an atmosphere that poses an immediate threat to life, would cause irreversible adverse health effects, or would impair an individual's ability to escape from a dangerous atmosphere." 29 CFR 1910.134(b). In these situations, a tight-fitting pressure demand respirator is required. Wearing a respirator that is less protective could pose a grave danger not only to the worker who is wearing it, but also to other workers who might be called on to rescue him from the IDLH atmosphere. Preventing these unnecessary risks is a compelling governmental interest that justifies OSHA's decision not to provide a religious exemption from the respirator standard, especially as there is no less restrictive way to provide this protection."
Which is funny because people who actually work with this tech know well that facial hair is no obstacle to rigorously functional respirator use. This is more of a cultural tradition such as how genital mutilation of infant boys is necessary for health when it really took off as a way of adding value to birth support service invoices.
It creates inequality. For some reason we accept that following a morality framework based on a bunch of presuppositions puts you in a special box (well, I don't accept it). Like, why am I forced to be sent to a meat grinder and kill people? Just because I'm not ultra orthodox something?
This is just a consequence of the philosophically liberal metaphysics, anthropology, and resulting moral views and political orders they produce. Once you accept those premises, they act as a corrosive agent that can be deployed to dissolve all sorts of truths opposed to someone's conception of "autonomy" and "freedom" and you really have no defense as long as your thinking is subject to them. It's why the Right has consistently lost all sorts of cultural battles. They, too, are liberals - because we're all liberals, culturally - and as long as they remain so, their "reactionary" behavior will largely remain rooted in mere sentimental attachment to an imagined past rather than something intellectually substantive. Hence, why what falls under the label of "postliberalism" has a much stronger shot. It is an intellectual rejection of liberalism with intellectual substance that often draws on robust metaphysical and anthropological "alternatives" to liberalism, as it were.
Sorry you can define criteria how to find a better understanding of the world. E.g. Popper did it (as he asked the innocent question if one is aloud to disprove your theory)
It pisses lots of people including Marxist, Nazis, Gender Study Theorists, Catholics, as all of them believe stuff which they dont like to disapprove.
Your statement smells like Catholic rhetoric so I am happy to announce the truth is there is no god. Jesus was not his son and he was certainly not reborn. Just some folks who invented this story 1950 years ago.
Your last paragraph is out of order and sounds like the kind of dig that made Usenet and so many early-millennium web forums so tiresome. Catholics amount to a minority of people making up postliberal trends, and many of those who are Catholics spend a lot of their time arguing not quite from "Jesus who was invented 1950 years ago" but from Aristotelian concepts that became a popular intellectual framework within Western Christianity. I say all this as someone who is neither Catholic, nor would call himself postliberal.
Just chiming in: I upvoted both the post you replied to and the post it was replying to. All of yours got the thumbs down. No one appointed you the order police and this entire train was net-negative.
"[...] so tiresome. " I only wrote very basic Atheist concepts. If that is tiresome to you, I dont know, what else.
" Catholics amount to a minority of people making up postliberal trends, " I cited a bigger group of people who have a problem with the liberal Popper. You can call Marxist classical postliberalism.
" e Catholics spend a lot of their time arguing not quite from "Jesus who was invented 1950 years ago" but from Aristotelian concepts " I doubt it. Most catholics I've met dont do it. Sorry. And I doubt that most Catholics do any deep philosophical statement at all. You can ask them how I could disapprove their belief. You wouldnt get an answer, sometimes a very angry reaction.
No, your post wasn't "basic atheism" (a basic atheist probably wouldn't write anything there at all) but New Atheism, which was such a web community-spoiling scene and thankfully peaked and declined nearly two decades ago though you apparently didn't go the memo.
Most Catholics you have met are immaterial, because the OP distinctly mentioned postliberalism. If you want to bring up Catholics here, then the Catholics who would bother to identify with postliberalism, which is after all a stance of political philosophy, are largely those Catholics of a philosophical bent, and that is why one hears a lot of Aristotle in defense of their political and social models. I have my own disagreements with Catholics because I am not sympathetic to many claims of Aristotelianism, but on HN facts matter.
" our post wasn't "basic atheism" (a basic atheist probably wouldn't write anything there at all) but New Atheism, which was such a web community-spoiling scene and thankfully peaked and declined nearly two decades ago though you apparently didn't go the memo. "
You mean people like Kazimierz Łyszczyński (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazimierz_%C5%81yszczy%C5%84sk... ) or the growing atheism in the Arab world ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oy3JuwGJWBE ) ? I didnt get the memo? In my country Catholism is losing constantly people and English use net was not a thing back then.
" Most Catholics you have met are immaterial " Most Catholics just suck what they learned during child hood. They are postliberal as they wish a Catholic society which is hence not liberal. Arguing with Aristoteles is just plain sane washing as the bible is intellectuelly very thin.
This is so good. Here's one stand-out line (of many) to me:
> And as for whether it replaces or disrupts anything good that already exists, I will only say that I have watched it, in a very short time, begin to replace the patient work of learning, the slow formation of judgment, the friendship of teacher and student, the labor by which a writer finds out what she thinks. These are things that, once lost, are not quickly recovered.
AI that pretends to be a human mind, or takes the place of a human mind is an abomination. [what does that mean? that's the whole ballgame. defining what this means]
AI as a tool can do impressive things.
AI usage metrics by employers is ... an interesting test case.
The word "relying" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. The point I'm making is that "relying" on human experts, as opposed to AI experts, is the same thing: you're giving up your autonomy for the illusion of productivity, and in the process courting disaster. To put it another way: Every single one of you who downvoted me has clearly never read Frank Herbert's Dune. Machine-think is not limited to machines.
Where's the irony? Everything the article reports about Durman's opinions would seem to suggest that millions of humans mutually supporting each other is exactly the kind of thing that he wants to see happening.
“Expertise of millions of human agents” …in what? Understanding the universe that’s around us? In the cosmic sense, we humans have not done anything at all, aside from trying to understand it and “chimping out” from time to time.
It’s just that our human-centric bias is showing. We are not the main characters of this universe. Not by a long shot. Heck, in the planetary sense, we feel like earth belongs to us, but chances are we will not be in the top 1,000,0000th of its inhabitants as species by the amount of time spent living on it when life inevitably ceases to exist on it at some point in the future.
Every A.I. related post here has someone saying "I for one see no difference between a human being and an A.I." but this may be the first time I've seen this cliche extended to "How bizarre to meet a human being that thinks humans are not identical to A.I."
That doesn’t seem ironic at all. Irony is merely the condition where appearance and reality differ. In this case, if he values his own thinking he presumably values the thinking of other persons.
This kind of automation takes the execution away from you, not the decision, and even that execution only concerns you. You wanted to shift into a higher gear, the car's computer does it for you. The result is what you wanted. A fully autonomous car that decides everything for you would be a better example.
If you let an AI grade an exam then a big part of what comes next is a decision that you didn't take or validate. You didn't remove yourself just from the execution, you removed yourself from the responsibility and cognitive effort to take the decision, and from the accountability for that decision.
If you can simplify and call every button press "just the computer doing things", then someone else can exaggerate and say a fully autonomous drone hunting humans is the same, business as usual, computers doing things.
theory: there are two groups that a lot of hackernews commenters fall into. And these two groups clash on every Ai post every day. One camp only uses Ai to write code and thinks of them strictly as LLMs with a clearly understood design and purpose but that show some surprising behavior, they've watched youtube videos that show how everything ties together computationally and mathematically, from neural nets to RL, etc. and dont see them as capital A, Ai. It's another tool in the toolbox, and thinking about them in the way you describe, as something closer to capital Ai would cause severe cognitive dissonance, akin to the idea that a hammer could hop out of the toolbox and start building a house. Even though what you've done is just take one small step of critical thinking, it would be a leap to the other camp members, who are themselves, quite technical thinkers.
This is only still true because in the parts of the world with the most population, cost is the #1 deciding factor in vehicle purchasing. Manuals are cheaper. Globally the industry is trending against manuals over time.
Also in large parts of Europe if you pass your driving test in an automatic car you _can't_ drive a manual, so it becomes the default out of convenience.
Not true. Even for a lower middle income country like mine, cars with manual gearboxes had become very rare (with the exception of cabs where they remain the norm).
Possibly out of date statistics including farm machinery and motorbikes sold to Africa. In Southeast Asia, I've noticed that cities are mostly now all automatic scooters but in country areas many people still prefer manual. Manual is more intuitive for tackling hard topography and very bad roads.
Outside of the United States? Even then, I don't think this has been a true statement for at least a decade, if not more with the rise of EVs in places other than the USA.
Because it shows that there are a large number of people who do not want to offload a basic task, people for whom an insignificant convenience is not worth a significant outlay of money.
I think if you mapped smart home technology to transmission preference, those who op for manual transmissions probably also opt for oldschool switches and thermostats .
I agree with the principle that if it meaningfully impinges on your core ideals that you shouldn't be required to do that.
On the other hand, it seems like this particular ideal is being supported because of an underlying public sentiment. Not because the ideal itself is held.
I think if you are going to fully support variances in beliefs like this then it should be done on an equal standing.
That includes principles about proprietary software, abusive software, the belief that information cannot have ownership, advertising is inherently immorral.
There are a lot more principles, it is clear that some people have these at a level where they consider it a core part of their being,
Why shouldn't they also be supported. Should companies be required to offer open source solutions for employees in the same manner as this case is suggesting for non-AI?
While I don't want to complain about the downvotes, it does present me with some confusion. What part of my post is being disagreed with here?
Do people disagree that beliefs should be accommodated? Do they disagree that they should be treated equally? I didn't say where to draw the line, I just observed that one existed.
This is very interesting. As someone who thinks AI is an amazing tool, I am very well interested in seeing how will people refusing to use AI fare both in professional settings and day-to-day life.
A new Amish-like lifestyle may be developing before our eyes in real-time and that's very interesting to follow and observe (from a distance).
One thing I've seen with AI is AI as used by software developers is quickly diverging from AI that's used by knowledge workers.
Knowledge workers use it primarily to "augment" their work, answer questions with AI, get it to create documents, etc. But it's usually 1 individual to 1-2 conversation threads.
Meanwhile in software development were running fleets of agents. At work we have it setup where firing off one agent request will eventually lead to like 10-20 AI calls at different parts of the process.
I make this distinctions because it changes how each group thinks about AI. For software devs it just feels like "moving up the stack". Yeah you're not writing code anymore but there is still plenty of work to do and problems to solve within your "software factory". Contrast that with knowledge workers that feel like the AI is making all of their decisions for them.
I almost think of this as a factory worker versus an artisan. The software devs are "factory workers" where we used to be on the floor but now we're managing the machines that took over the work. There are still tons of interesting problems at that stage and you still feel like you have worth. Contrast that with a knowledge worker that's more of an artisan in this analogy. For them they aren't running a factory but instead watching a robot do the work they used to do while they sit idle and watch it.
"Contrast that with a knowledge worker that's more of an artisan in this analogy. For them they aren't running a factory but instead watching a robot do the work they used to do while they sit idle and watch it".
I think your general thesis about how AI is used of agents vs. the general chat interface is true, but not the rest.
Your knowledge worker example is where people fail when using AI, and it is usually very obvious.
Knowledge workers who know what they're doing recognized very quickly that AI often goes down very bad rabbit holes, often cites incorrect sources, makes up sources, or will use a random Facebook source or Reddit post as an authority on some topic. In legal circles you have to fight it to understand what venue(s) apply and to get it to stick to the right ones, in medical research it will sometimes pull in crackpot papers from left field and intermix them with well defined research.
People in the knowledge realm caught on very quickly that you have to use AI iteratively and constantly back check what you get and correct it. Let it run on its own and it will give you a legal theory based on some weird case in Kentucky that has no bearing to your issue with a court in Vermont.
This is not that much different in programming, it just takes longer to find out.
Using AI is like using adaptive cruise control: you're still in charge of where the vehicle will ultimately end up and if you decide to go take a nap you will wake up in the hospital or end up in the morgue.
It's true though that the 'time between interventions' is lengthening steadily.
>This is not that much different in programming, it just takes longer to find out.
The primary difference is that it's much easier for the AI to figure out itself if it's wrong on the programming side. Knowledge workers don't have automated testing for example.
The end result is the knowledge worker needs to be more heavily involved in the process and be more mindful of mistakes which makes it a worse experience for the user and generally less productive than it is for programmers.
That's true. And: as long as you don't hit production mistakes are cheap and quick to fix. Not so in many other fields.
It is more that knowledge workers are less sophisticated at using AI. It is not that hard to check whether sources are real, using AI or other tools, for example. Something like functional testing will come to non programming tasks.
Consistently catching errors is vastly harder when you’re not the one doing the legwork. Send the wrong file, do a bad copy and paste, or skip one verification step, etc is all it takes for most people to majorly mess up.
For most professionals it’s just safer to avoid having output in your workflow. Keep using AI, but stop copying and pasting AI output.
It's not hard, but having to check work so carefully, at some point you're better off just doing it yourself.
The major difference is that people routinely ship shoddy, broken products in the world of software with few consequences, beyond needing to patch it later. Try the same thing with a court filing and you’re out on your ass.
This was true before AI too.
In practice, lawyers generally don't ever disbarred except if they lie to clients or steal from them.
Yes exactly. It isn’t a surprise that the industry with no professional standards worth discussing is also the one having the biggest field day with ML. My point is that in many other professional arenas acting like a software “engineer” is called malpractice.
We're still early in AI.
All of this will sort itself out and eventually bio, legal, software will all just work.
Don't hold onto any single assumption about the world. Things are going to be weird.
Well hang on, "just work" implies an objective standard of correct vs incorrect. No such standard exists. I'm sure that there will be legal AIs that reliably do... something... but the whole point of the legal system is to allow space for humans to argue their case. If an AI "does legal" deterministically, without human intervention, how can it be said to be "working" if its very use defeats the purpose of the system it has learned to navigate so expertly?
That’s utopian thinking unburdened by reality or the need to explain how this will work. I have no interest in that.
We aren’t talking about the new version of SV spiritualism here, we’re talking about systems people actually care about.
i wonder why dont we have a better pipeline for research. for example ask opus to do some research, then have some hook configured with Haiku, JEV, anything that makes more sense really, only job is ti check the sources are real. you can keep adding into this, of course it can get too big, of course it will still fail, but it will still be much better than the current state of things. It seems to be a low hanging fruit with a huge value that no one has taken.
"People in the knowledge realm caught on very quickly that you have to use AI iteratively and constantly back check what you get and correct it."
If lawyers and article writers are in the knowledge realm. Then your thesis has plenty of counter-examples of people who just use AI to create stuff and don't correct it.
I don't personally know of any software engineers using AI as "fleets of agents" in a "factory." Sounds like a nightmare.
I usually have a high-level agent drafting plans, then spawning sub-agents to build parts of the plan, other sub-agents to check the work of those agents. Then the PRs have different code review agents looking at the code, on top of the agents for people on my team also reviewing my code.
And I'm probably on the more amateurish end of AI development. As I learned these techniques from YouTube.
When you hear about the work Anthropic researchers are doing, they seem to be using hundreds or thousands of agents to solve problems.
> When you hear about the work Anthropic researchers are doing, they seem to be using hundreds or thousands of agents to solve problems.
There's a reason they're Anthropic researchers. The value proposition tanks when you actually have to foot the bill for the tokens you use.
Subagent flows can improve overall performance, but it generally also comes with disproportionately high token use. That gets worse with parallel subagents that are often doing the same things at the same time and cannot share a cache.
So the point I was trying to make is that I'm maybe in the 25th percentile of developers and am using multiple agents for a task, and Anthropic researchers are at the 99th percentile and are using thousands of agents per task.
So the median developer is probably using 5-20 agents at a time for a task. I'm not sure if that crosses the threshold of being a "fleet of agents".
I'm curious to see your source for these numbers. Your flow sounds closer to a 99th percentile one than a 25th. I find it hard to believe that a median developer is using 5-20 agents at a time.
Yeah... N=2-3 here but my team prefers having 1 main agent and maybe a couple more finely tuned ones for review / analysis / security... I generally have 2-3 chats going on different tasks but more than that and I lose the plot.
the way I read this passage - author claims to be not a particularly skilled or fast-paced practitioner, and yet it is true that author is using agents like this. Next, very advanced researchers -- in the heart of the AI Frontier industry -- are using many more agents with much larger actions.
The "median developer" refers to the particularly skilled or fast-paced, not that there are continuous numbers of every practitioner using N-agents
Give it another 6 months (if that) and you can drop the cost an order of magnitude.
They are doing that because they are running into hardware limits with single agents. If one agent made correct decisions and explored spaces efficiently, they would not need hundreds of thousands of agents. It's is the luxury of great wealth that they can produce a large number of possibly defective samples and then select the ones that are not defective.
> And I'm probably on the more amateurish end of AI development. As I learned these techniques from YouTube.
I think that sums up the "fleets of agents" approach fairly well.
Yeah, I very much dispute the characterization GP made as to how software devs are working. I know some are. But I do not believe it's the majority of people in the field, not by a long shot.
Every PR now has auto reviews. That's like at least 3-5+ agents depending on the repo.
you... don't read hackernews much I take it? This is like 10% of all submissions lately, lol.
In fact I do live outside HN.
Supposedly they are out there. I heard from one person who claimed it. They didn't have a viable product and said their ai spend was in the tens of thousands a month for over 6 months. 1 employee startup baby
We have 5 star restaurants, fast food and street meat yet we still have kitchens. We can go to the super market to buy eggs, and produce yet I know people who have gardens to grow their own food and a scant few have chickens for eggs.
I don't actually use AI much at all simply because in my line of work the knowledge is industry specific and niche - an AI can't tell you how to fix a proprietary machine. I have used it a few times but to do dumb things like write some Excel script or some other piece of software I have no interest or need for learning.
I use the AI in the "knowledge worker" way you described. However I still feel it's augmenting my work, because I don't ask or expect it to make decisions for me. I use it to gather sources, to criticize my ideas, to generate summaries targeted to people expectations, and so on. Yes of course it's gonna influence my work with their own biases, but I don't think it is that important - my own biases are otherwise still there...
I love giving it different supplier docs and having it read them all allowing me to get pros vs cons and act like search.
That's because current AI models are incapable of doing knowledge workers' jobs. At least for me as an attorney, Harvey is only actually useful when it comes to helping me sort through large amounts of data. Even then, I can't trust its judgment (it has shown to be very poor) so it's only so useful
Current AI models are incapable of doing software development either, but that isn't stopping some people.
what do you mean by this?
AI is not an abstraction, so any programmer who thinks they’re “moving up the stack” is fundamentally mistaken.
Language is a tool for abstraction, and AI is just an imperfect tool for working with language.
In the sense that "down the stack" is well-captured by existing language, AI is absolutely moving programmers up the stack. I can describe my goals using high-level abstractions, and the low-level implementation is somewhat constrained by that.
How well constrained it is depends on how well I described the problem and the quality of the model - much like how good human-written code is depends on how clearly the authors were thinking when they designed the structure.
Oh, well, I guess the managers at my last job were secretly "programmers" who were simply farther up the stack — all the way up to the CEO, evidently the greatest programmer of them all.
Some CEOs are engineering leaders. Some are not. The difference IMO will matter more and more as LLMs infiltrate deeper.
AI is an abstraction in the same way throwing a task to a junior engineer is
I think you mean "shouldn't be", because I see many using as if it is.
I think you are onto something. I think most agents I have up is two and even that I am not super comfortable not carefully managing. Otoh, buddy has agents galore running his network and everything giving him updates in near real time. I just.. don't have that much .. I want to say faith, but that suggests unshakeable religious belief.. confidence. I don't have that kind of confidence. There is too much stuff connected now ( taxes, projects, work, fun ). I am slowly starting to separate everything even that takes some careful planning.
Devs are just early. What you describe knowledge workers doing is what devs did a year (or two) ago and in fact my dev colleagues still use it like that. Web interface with a chat, copy pasting code.
It’s a phase.
Was going to say, to the extent I rely on Claude, I'm closer to the old school than the new hotness. I don't run fleets of agents per se, I just use Claude Code with a good bit of back-and-forth and review. So not quite web browser level usage, but I don't have a big swarm of agents working full time. I guess CC can spin up multiple agents, but I don't know if that counts.
Fortunately I'm in a shop that isn't being judged by feature output quantity, but is absolutely judged on whether or not our internal or external customers go out of service. We don't have pressure to pump output.
I'm starting to have them gather info to feed into automated tooling for drafting tasks. It's just there's no good harness for my field (and only recently have models been able to read symbolic things well enough)
This looks like the classic "AI can do everybody else's job but mine still needs me".
I know knowledge workers who throw what you give them into the slop machine and return the slop, but I don't need them, I can feed the slop machine myself. I still need those who have experience and taste that the machine hasn't got yet.
The centaur / reverse-centaur is another interesting way to describe this split.
> A new Amish-like lifestyle may be developing before our eyes in real-time and that's very interesting to follow and observe (from a distance).
I’m just old enough to remember some older adults in my life who refused to use email. They would only talk to coworkers in person or on the phone.
It did not work out very well, unless they could afford to retire at that point. When your career evolves, the only way to keep participating is to evolve with it.
I knew a guy early in my career who has a secretary (for starters!) who printed out his email and put them on his desk every morning with the rest of the mail. He would then dictate his response to her and she would type it in. It was pure ego. Nothing else.
Some in that era could not type, at all.
Yes, and because typists and secretaries were predominately women, it was not as uncommon as one might imagine for male executives to eschew personal computers based on their perception of gender roles.
I like to call it “keyboard cooties.”
There's a great anecdote about that in the book _Dealers of Lightning_, where the Xerox execs were indifferent to a demo of the Star personal computer but their wives were ecstatic about it.
I don't know why you're being downvoted, this is absolutely true.
I had a boss early in my career (around 1990) who considered typing effeminate and was mildly horrified at what the world was coming to with all us guys who were cheerfully using a keyboard. He had a secretary who did all his typing. This was ~5 years before email became common, but I'm sure he would have had all his emails printed so he could read them properly.
These things have a self-reinforcing feedback loop -- consider also for example, men learning to use "power tools" but not a sewing machine.
And I've read somewhere that quite a fraction of young people nowadays can't type (effectively) on a physical keyboard - no wonder, their main interaction with computing being via phones and tablets. Could be that typing won't be useful/practiced anymore (like already cursive writing in some parts of the world).
There is a generation of people that are unique insofar as having grown up with handwriting on pen and paper (with cursive!) in school while also having typing/computing classes and access to the internet at a young age. Of course, people could type before computers, though it was a specialist skill more often than not, and kids certainly have every opportunity to pick up both handwriting and touch typing today, but the balance of it all isn't quite the same is it?
Also a way for dyslexics to hide their issue.
I have a friend who uses ChatGPT, but writes all the messages on paper, takes a picture, and sends it in. Then prints out all the responses to annotate and respond to.
Isn't this still what Donald Trump does?
Yes, he doesn't really know how to use a computer. He was born in the 1940s, computer skills are not super common for people from that generation. He was already in his mid-50s when computers started to become common in the workplace.
I’m in my mid forties. If VR/ar devices like the Apple Vision Pro were to go mainstream, I can’t imagine myself learning how to use it effectively as a daily driver device to get work done. Heck, even the Internet, I’m pretty sure my relationship with it is more of wary scepticism than most people in their thirties.
I can see why someone who never used email until their fifties would never get fully comfortable with it.
Isn't this the original point? The workplace is getting AI-ified, so there are lots of people who are unwilling/unable/uncomfortable changing the way they work to deal with it.
Refusing to use technology isn't the Amish way, they communally decide how and when to use technology.
It hasn't exactly worked out well for email, either...
There's no better written communication tool than email. It's one of the most successful inventions of the 20th century.
[dead]
Why?
i have 4 email accounts, and I check them maybe once a week. nobody sends me emails any more, everybody uses "messaging"
(actually, i forgot i have 2 or 3 others, I check them even less, perhaps a few times a year, really only when i need to reset a password associated with them)
Out of roughly 400 billion emails sent daily worldwide, estimates pin actual human written messages at around 10%. In personal inboxes, human correspondence is essentially extinct. Checking my own personal email inbox right now, the entire first page is 2FA, Amazon, some shit from my climbing gym, my car, my employer health insurance, my bank... My spam filters are aggressive and there are literally thousands of unread emails in there waiting for me to click select all -> delete. Even at work the overwhelming majority is automated Jira noise, CI/CD noise, calendar shit, compliance blasts... I have received maybe 2 or 3 actual human typed messages in the last 2-3 weeks.
It's a fucking log dump for machines.
Totally agree. About half the time, or more, that I send an actual email I get no reply because it got lost in the deluge of crap and I end up calling or texting the recipient so they know to search their inbox for my message.
40 billion/day is extinct ?
For personal correspondence? Yes. Most of what email was used for, for actual humans in their personal lives, has transitioned to SMS and other apps like WhatsApp, WeeChat, Signal, Discord, and that happened a decade ago.
You see that 90% of the daily volume is sludge and think this is a healthy communication network for humans?
There are other types of non-personal reasons people still use email. I certainly don't SMS or WhatsApp with my work colleagues or any of our vendors.
According to the AI boosters, my career (and pretty much everyone else's) is already over anyway.
I am an AI booster, and this is incorrect. Your career will change, and if you change with it, it'll thrive.
What unique selling point do individuals operating AI still have if it's AI doing the heavy lifting and specialized work? I mean I don't believe that people in general will need to work less (no automation has done that), but I'm convinced many people will need to find new employment at lower wages in a society where cost of living only increases.
I can't afford a pay cut, and AI isn't making my job worth more.
" will need to find new employment at lower wages "
Why at lower wages? Most automation has led to people transitioning to higher wages. Utility works get paid 10x more than lamplighters. Why would that change here? Your job will have a bigger impact, affect more people, and you'll be doing more with less.
I am not saying all employers will immediately start paying people more, but economically it doesn't make sense that pay will go down.
Recent news from China about how better AI capabilities changed what Chinese specialists can earn with microdramas are not confirming this point. Some historical analogies to reassure people things will turn out nice in the end are nice but are not very convincing if you have so many more recent counterexamples with the gig economy and the huge inflation that was not a problem in the early 20th century.
The economy now is very different, no gold or silver standard, less isolation and more globalised product chains and processes, and 7-times as many people.
There is a good chance that a large enough number of people will suffer from this transformation, and they will have to fight with whatever they have, because if they don't, they will risk being left on the roadside and not getting any raise.
People having some direction over how jobs are automated should keep that in mind, otherwise it will be too late to convince the masses of people fearing automation that it is their fault not seeing the positive angles of automation.
To me this just reads like how I imagine people and the Luddites thought about automated looms. At first they were excited, thinking about the cheap and abundant cloth they put in plenty of work to make automated looms work flawlessly, until they start getting replaced. But they made excuses that they always need someone who knows more than "put cloth on spool, press button" to run these factories and that skilled people will always be needed. But slowly and surely the factory went towards quantity and not quality, and since quantity was done regardless why pay for the skilled and knowledgeable workers? And soon nobody made good money making cloth except the factory owner, the cloth was shit, and the people who built it all left with nothing but memories of once being valuable.
>>people who built it all left with nothing but memories of once being valuable.
But, the story doesn't end there does it? Most loom workers left their jobs and became factory workers (part of the same technology revolution) and critically: made MORE money. They were wealthier. And the loom machine operators left had a better job. There are very good sources for this, not just vibes [1].
I don't deny that the transition process is traumatic, and there is much we should be doing this time around to assuage the process. But all the evidence points to a general rise in pay, material conditions and standard of living.
[1]: https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300205251/libertys-dawn/
As anyone in the Rust Belt can tell you, the average worker might experience higher wages over time, but the average worker is a statistical fiction, not a flesh and blood person.
Individuals and entire communities can live out the rest of their lives destitute and hopeless in the wake of changes that leave them behind. Things might be brighter for those who come after, but let's not pretend we're not doing real violence to those left behind.
The "average worker" ends up getting more wealthy because younger, newer employees who grow up native to the new technology often capture its upsides at the expense of older workers who were unable to. The Rust Belt is a great example of this because most kids ended up migrating out to cities for work while their parents or the less successful ones ended up stuck.
There's a lot of questions right now.
1. Will there be a net-new creation of jobs? Is positive-sum knowledge work a real thing, or have we run out of new jobs to create?
2. How quickly will workers transition to an AI version of their jobs?
3. Will AI even succeed in a broad way across knowledge work or will the frontier of AI remain jagged and only impact some jobs (coding) while leaving others alone?
4. For workers left behind in this transition, what will their lives be like? We know from looking at previous technology transitions (industrial revolution, factory automation, computer revolution, now maybe AI revolution) that many workers really do end up in bad places. It's perfectly reasonable to demand that in today's world in our advanced societies that even if those workers are unable to adapt that they are able to lead lives with dignity.
There's a lot of interesting conversations and investigations to be had but my biggest fear is just that nobody is really willing to listen to the other side with empathy. This entire conversation thread is just people snipping at each other, hitting the vote buttons based on where they want to steer their favorite opinion. If you want to do social and economic science in this space but people are so polarized, the work will be thwarted. In general offline spaces are less polarized (not to be mistaken for pro or anti AI disruption) than online spaces, but my fear is that we continue to polarize, making understanding the fabric of our social change challenging and letting down everyone in the process.
>>is really willing to listen to the other side with empathy
Agreed, which is why I explicitly said: "I don't deny that the transition process is traumatic, and there is much we should be doing this time around to assuage the process."
I want to find a way to lead with this sentiment, and I think the focus should be on this. It's hard on people to work through these transitions and lashing out at every new technology only helps temporarily.
>> or have we run out of new jobs to create?
FWIW, I think this is an insane idea and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of humans. We're status seeking creatures. As an AI developer, I'm hoping AI can help us meet everyones needs up the first couple of layers of Maslow's hierarchy. But no way are we solving the former status problems. That will remain and will be creating jobs out the wazoo.
I don't think the analogy holds. AI isn't automating one job, it's automating _knowledge work_. There's no factory work to flee to, literally and figuratively.
Try to come up with a job that both doesn't produce anything physical, and can't be done by AI.
>>” it's automating _knowledge work_. ”
This is vague marketing speak and simply not the reality on the ground. As someone implementing all new workflows, most of the time I’m create new product classes wholesale. sometimes I see people upskilling tasks so the same human can do more.
I can’t think of a single knowledge job where they are removing humans from the loop completely.
Random news headlines of struggling companies doing “AI layoffs” don’t count. No amount of AI can save bad leadership.
And where do you propose the 20-25% or so of the soon-to-be-jobless will go next?
They dont know and dont care.
people who spout the trite “everything will be better at some nondescript future point in time” are essentially screaming “the ends justify the means and screw everyone else, i’m going to get my bag / be ok”.
From what I've been able to find, that book does not make the argument that the people actually displaced from their jobs ended up better off. It is certainly possible for some workers to end up better off while those who were displaced do not.
> Most automation has led to people transitioning to higher wages.
No, what you mean to say is that automation has eventually (decades later) led to higher purchasing power in the system as a whole. The outlook for people that were directly automated away was pretty bleak, actually. The hundreds of thousands of lamplighters did not largely become the thousands of electricians that were needed in this new industry.
This tracks for all industries. Automation literally means far fewer people will be employed to do the same job (otherwise what's the point of it?). That dumps these workers out at the low end of the general job market, where they have to compete with an increasing number of people. Because of the desperation to get any job, the wages fall. It's only decades later that societies settled into a new place and created enough brand new jobs to make up the shortfall, or applied regulation to reign in the crazy power imbalance. That's the stuff you miss out on if you only look at statistics that span centuries and treat the population as one homogeneous mass. The people who are directly targeted by automation are very likely to have their lives messed up for a very long time.
>Most automation has led to people transitioning to higher wages.
Gonna need a citation for this.
Easy. Name one profession within the North American context that makes less money (inflation adjusted) now than say a farmer, loom weaver or laborer of yore.
A grub hub delivery man is wealthier today than a farmer 100 years ago and that's purely because of two reasons: Technology and Unions :)
This argument only works if you have a career (and lifespan) that spans 100+ years. I'd venture a guess that 0% of Grubhub delivery drivers were farmers a hundred years ago.
Have you talked to a delivery driver in most large cities? Most of them come from countries where they would be a farmer or day laborer.
This ball is going through even your ever-moving goal posts. My statement never claimed people's careers would stay the same and they'd just make more money.
But you didn't provide any support for saying that the specific people who were automated away would make more money. That's what people are objecting to.
I have with specific data and personal stories in other parts of the thread.
There are some great reads on this topic[1].
[1]: https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300205251/libertys-dawn/
That’s only one analogy. What about artisanal cobblers vs Southeast Asia Nike sweatshop workers?
Well, for example, a metric ass-ton of shoes and shoe components are made in Bosnia. But hardly anyone still makes the traditional opanci in the traditional way; there's one guy left in the whole Hercegovina that does. And they are required for the national costume, so they are still important. But the economics just don't work out.
>>What about artisanal cobblers vs Southeast Asia Nike sweatshop workers?
No technology involved? Other than I guess tangentially, containerized shipping. I don't see how that analogy applies here at all, every AI workflow I've seen has been either:
a) Totally new thing that was never done before that is possible now and is therefore creating a new class of work
b) Worst case scenario: a whole spate of jobs being consolidated under one person, but its still a human in the end.
So everything I'm seeing is pointing to this being a lamplighter/utility worker situation.
I don't care if my career thrives. I care if I thrive.
Currently, I don't see any reason at all to suspect that AI will make my life better or even just not make it worse.
And you are basing this on what, exactly?
AI boosting seems to be very close to pulling shit out of ass.
My change will be killing the computer. I will then thrive.
Sometimes career tracks cease to exist…typists, secretaries, and in real time right now translators.
The job is to automate the enterprise, keep things safe and reliable, and make money for the company.
It was never about software. That was just the means.
Even in the software era, fads developed and tech stacks changed frequently. Now it's just moving a hundred times faster.
You need smart systems thinkers to do this. That's the role. Be smart in managing processes and complexity.
I'm not going to give coding interviews anymore, but I am going to give architecture, systems design, and SRE interviews. People still need to know how not to fuck up a database and how to design scalable and resilient systems.
Very much agree with most of this.
The number of people who never seem to have understood what software and IT is in most companies is eye opening to me. Your job was never really to "write code" - you were always automating things.
That the field got somewhat stuck for a couple decades seems to have made many people forget this.
The vast majority of programmers who started in the 80's and 90's are basically directly responsible for massive waves of job losses in certain categories. Lots of cases of entire departments of secretarial level paper-pushing work being replaced with a small team of programmers. Same will happen with AI tooling. The difference is programmers are no longer the "winning" party here.
Computers and software in the end are the most configurable and complex automation system society has ever created. They are simply a continuation of industrial automation, and AI is a continuation upon that.
I think it's helpful seeing AI in this context, at least in as much as it pertains to enterprise and industry.
I don't like that comparison. Email was an improvement to snail mail, and the people who you claim refused to use it just didn't understand it and didn't want to understand it.
Lots of people, myself included, understand llms and can and do use them at work because we have to, but we might choose to not use them outside of work because they rot our brains, are unethical, funnel even more money into the hands of a few billionaires (selling a service trained on stolen property) and haven't actually been proven to make the world better. Unlike email!
I’d love to read the paper on how email was objectively “proven to make the world better” and how LLMs fail this same test.
Email stopped me having to walk to the post box or spend a lunch hour in the post office. Before WhatsApp etc it let me communicate instantly with relatives in other countries for free. Email made my website accounts harder to crack. So many things.
What the fuck have LLMs done yet? Nothing! We would be no worse off without them so far and no one has anything to show to prove otherwise, except some vibe coded websites that all look the same (edgy dark theme and hacker vibes)
Come on Gary, prove me wrong smartass
hospitals still use faxes not email due to the latter's inherent insecurity
About 20 years ago I had a phone number that was one digit off from a local attorney who took medical malpractice cases. And despite not using it myself, that phone line had built-in fax detection and so it would accept any incoming fax and then email the results to me. I lost count of the number of times I got sent a good chunk of someone's private medical records. In many cases repeatedly from the same source, despite me calling them and politely explaining that they had just sent someone's medical records to a random stranger.
So ... perhaps more secure than email, but not necessarily as much as you'd think. Though maybe it isn't as common now to have phone lines with fax receiving included. I worked for a CLEC at the time and got my phone & internet through them too, so maybe I was just getting the special deluxe plan. Had my very own public class C, too, but that's a different problem.
As if phone lines are not inherently insecure. The only reason they use fax is because it's been grandfathered in.
Are you sure? I work across a few hospitals in the UK and can't recall seeing a fax in the last decade.
in the US, yes. I experience it personally. Can't speak for other countries.
[dead]
I think there’s a wide space between refusing any AI use, and refusing AI use requirements imposed by an employer. For example, one might find AI valuable for search, research, and getting a second opinion, but refuse it for primary generation of content.
The AI use requirement described in the source article doesn't seem to have had such a specific mandate.
I hope the rest of the debate would stay this rational.
Unfortunately, a lot of the pushback against AI has turned into knee-jerk opposition, where people reject the technology outright, without even understanding how it works or how it can be used constructively.
Just earlier today on Instagram, I saw a post where the top comments were genuinely celebrating the idea of AI "disappearing forever."
It’s disheartening to see the conversation get so reactionary.
Aren't the AI users the Amish here?
They've stopped technological progress. I tell you since AI started taking over, my experience is that nearly all forward progress (in software at least) has come to a halt. We've been standing in place, maybe sliding backwards a bit.
Here's the thing about AI: intelligence isn't a new thing, and it isn't a tool. The Amish can tell you that having a brain doesn't meant that you don't need a plow. In some ways they're much smarter than the AI crowd, all of who loudly keep insisting that brains will make plows and tractors and combine harvesters obsolete. You're so convinced that intelligence is the ultimate replacement for tools that you've stopped climbing the tech tree of tools...
It's like the tech industry itself no longer believes in technology.
I'm glad I'm not the only one noticing that. It feels that aside from the regular new LLM releases, there has been no serious innovation for the past four years.
I'm not even talking about holographic game consoles or FTL travel. Why can't we finally have a good container orchestrator that's not kubernetes for example?
> Why can't we finally have a good container orchestrator that's not kubernetes for example?
Easy, we can't because the LLMs know a lot about kubernetes but wouldn't know anything about a new orchestrator, so they'll always suggest k8s, and the button-pushers will just say "yes, do it, no mistakes". Maybe if Anthropic decides they need to create a new orchestrator, they would bias Claude heavily enough for it to actually get used, but that's about the only way I see.
Perhaps because the tools that we have already are already good enough.
"Why don't we have any new programming languages" or "Why don't we have any new web frameworks" or "Why don't we have any new operating systems" or "Why don't we have any new container orchestrators" might be the same kinds of questions as "why is the design for washing machines still basically the same as it was 50 years ago?" or "why are we still using English, where are all the new conlangs to replace it?" "why are we still using email/SMTP instead of inventing a better system" "why haven't we invented a new calendar?"
You're saying there's nothing left to invent. I think that explains a lot of the complacency around considering AI to be the last ever frontier for progress. I obviously don't agree. I've gone looking into "why don't we have better version control" and the answer is definitely not that we already have all we could want.
Not at all, actually. In fact that's the opposite of what I'm arguing. There are countless things left to invent. It's just not worth doing most of the time.
As a trivial example, Unicode is not a 100% perfect text encoding scheme. Why don't we have something better than unicode? Why is there no interest in making a unicode-but-better format which solves all the problems with unicode? The reason is, unicode is sufficiently good that the cost of switching would outweigh any marginal benefits.
It might not count as innovation in the last four years because the groundwork was laid decades ago, but in the last four years Waymo evolved to the point where it can drive on the highways.
And this is progress, how?
All it will lead to is yet more people that are out of a job. Right now at least a driving license (more so if it is a commercial license) is a source of income to many.
Good! All jobs should be made obsolete
And then what? Once the economy no longer depends on human input (labor), why do we expect it to keep producing outputs that humans need (food, shelter, medical care)?
Roughly 36k people died on US roads last year. Waymo's own numbers over 271M driverless miles show about 95% fewer serious injury crashes than the human benchmark in the cities it runs in. Discount that however much you want for methodology, it's still progress.
And you really believe that when Waymo is the only way to drive around that those figures will hold?
> Why can't we finally have a good container orchestrator that's not kubernetes for example?
What's the market demand? I'm confident there are plenty of alternatives being churned out today but nobody's looking or asking for any. If only because they settled on k8s, they have it on their CV, they have certifications, and switching is a huge investment and risk.
Right now to me it feels like the innovation is in using LLMs to (finally?) clean up existing code, find vulnerabilities, do maintenance, optimize, and if necessary rewrite.
I'd love to have speech-to-text on my iPhone that actually worked without needing to proofread and edit.
But the AI still progressing at a rapid rate is also software.
It is progressing, yes, but it subsumed the productivity of humans.
Where before humans learned and built better tools, now you keep paying forever to get re-trained models. What makes it a regressive feedback loop is that the people who used to learn and push the frontier are now using AI to repackage others' work as their own. Eventually what will be left to train on but copies of copies of copies?
If your database gets bigger does the software get better too?
Software is an employment rather than a profession. That distinction is important. Here is a definition of profession:
Traditional professions share essential characteristics. They provide a vital service to society, requiring expertise and skill developed through years of training, education, and experience. Professions establish standards of practice and certify that their members are qualified to serve the needs of society.
--US Army, ADP 6-22, Army Leadership and the Profession
Software does not have explicit standards of practice or a required body of certifications for its practitioners. Software, as an employment, is whatever an employer wants or is willing to accept at any given moment.
What do you find important about this distinction? To me it's a description of the normative relationship between practitioners and broader society but I don't really see the significance you do.
Hillel Wayne wrote a really excellent well researched article about software engineering compared to other forms of engineering a few years ago. It necessarily goes into a lot of this stuff but what emerges is that these definitions are regulatory and historical debris.
You don't need medical board or a bar to certify or constrain professional behavior and those organizations may not constrain as much as you assume anyway. The reasons we do have those institutions is as much a matter of historical accident as any modern need for it, and the reasons we don't have it for other high impact fields is pretty much an accident too.
And in a lot of the world software engineering does have professional certification and standards of practice. They still ship adware and racist loan denial algorithms too.
https://www.hillelwayne.com/post/are-we-really-engineers/
If you have ever worked in almost any other industry your first question quickly answers itself. If you have never worked in an industry principally governed by ethical standards it would be challenging for me to describe it to you. I cannot give you what your perspective has never before imagined.
I'm not sure how you can know what I've experienced or imagined. But I appreciate your ownership of the communication failure here.
This is bunk/nonsense. Despite dentists ostensible having ethical standards, they are literally worse than lawyers on being scammers, charlatans, cranks, etc
Your definition would include Chiropractors as a profession. Such scum of the earth deserves nothing but contempt with extreme prejudice.
I sure as hell don’t want a doctor who hasn’t gone through any kind of certification and approval process.
for me it would depend on a situation (I definitely would not want to be in a situation where this would be needed)
Coding interviews don't matter anymore.
Every part of your existing job is transforming before your eyes.
If you cling to definitions and static roles, you're going to have a bad time.
I just finished several months of interviewing and think that you must be projecting a bit. Every one of them included a coding interview with no AI use allowed.
OpenAI and Anthropic still do coding interviews, though?
This makes sense, though. They have to be exceptionally confident in the performance of the product and work to continually improve its quality and efficiency. Many other companies can get by more just as consumers of it, but the makers of the product need some of the best coding skills available.
They keep claiming their agents are better than any programmer.
Sounds like the software execs who create addictive software but make sure their own kids don’t have a phone.
If they do, they're behind the curve. They don't matter anymore.
Systems design, architecture, database fundamentals, a bit of SRE. That matters. Not coding and syntax and toy problem solving with data structures and algorithms.
I think this is something where definitions and static roles might serve as a useful reference point. Is it really the case that the trillion-dollar frontier AI labs are behind the curve, and only some other group of people knows how to really leverage AI? It's not impossible - Nvidia employees aren't the best in the world at using their chips - but the hypothesis practically demands some analysis of who these clever curve-setters are and why we're hearing so much less about them than about Anthropic.
My own experience is that coding, syntax, and some kinds of toy problem solving are important skills to use AI coding tools most effectively. I routinely get PRs these days whose descriptions seem plausible but are clearly wrong from a glance at the code, and I've had times when I'm unable to communicate to someone why a PR is wrong because they're not able to form a sufficiently detailed mental model of what it's doing.
Legal IQ tests and nothing else.
Actual IQ tests are perfectly legal.
> US Army, ADP 6-22, Army Leadership and the Profession
I'm not going to let the army tell me what my job is.
Well yes, but dont call it a profession then.
And lets be pirates and hackers instead.
The IEEE has made some efforts to turn software engineering from an occupation into a profession — on par with civil engineering, architecture, law, medicine, military science, etc. A true profession requires a recognized body of knowledge, formal qualification criteria, and a code of ethics. So far most working software developers haven't shown much interest in this, nor is there much demand from employers or government authorities. I don't think we need to professionalize software engineering in the general case but it is an option for those who want it.
https://www.computer.org/education/bodies-of-knowledge/softw...
Be careful with military definitions. One near-universal aspect of a "profession" is that it be self-regulating. Lawyers have Bar Associations that dictate who can or cannot practice. Doctors have Medical Associations. So too accountants and engineers. These entities are granted monopolies but remain independent from government and set their own standards.
But by that definition, soldiering can never be a "profession" as a soldier is always regulated by the government they serve, and there is no professional association regulating mercenaries. But I would be very hesitant to suggest that the US Marines are not professional soldiers. They are. The definitions are messy.
> These entities are independent from government and set their own standards.
As they should. Industries should be self regulating. While these industries form their own standards of practice they do so with the blessing of government, typically under state government supervision/authorization in the US, and are held to account by government. A lawyer or doctor who violates their standards of practice could very likely be guilty of criminal law and find themselves in prison depending upon the violation even when no other criminal actions occurred.
Even bus drivers are held to higher standards of practice than software developers.
>> Even bus drivers are held to higher standards of practice than software developers.
Because while there are some software developers that might be in a place to cause people physical harm, ALL bus drivers are ALWAYS in a position to cause great and immediate harm to others on the road.
Determining proximity to harm is the excuse people are looking for to justify allowed malicious intent.
So are you making the case that some % of SWE should be licensed?
Those percentage of SWE working on critical infrastructure should be licensed and legally liable, yes. You shouldn't need a license to build a CRUD app, just like nobody needs a license to build a treehouse in their backyard. You should need a license to work on a car's braking system (https://safetyresearch.net/toyota-unintended-acceleration-an...) or radiation therapy machines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25), just like you need a license to engineer a highway bridge.
I agree completely — the lack of proper professional licensing around working on what has become critical infrastructure astounds me. But even more so is the pushback I feel from within the field! It isn’t that the pushback isn’t understandable; its more that its disappointing.
Interesting that some of the most critical software is open source with code contributed by people not even paid to write it.
People do things based on motivation. People motivated by pride and passion know that their work reflects upon them, so they have an incentive to care about quality. People motivated by money know that their paychecks will keep arriving as long as they keep meeting a minimum bar, so they're not incentivized to care about quality, but they are incentivized to care about responsiveness and consistency. For critical software, adding in legal liability for one's work creates the quality incentive that's lacking in most professional roles, while retaining the accountability that we can't expect of volunteers.
If you're in texas, you need a license to engineer. They're reasonable though and accept the reality of business card engineers.
In most (all?) US states, you need a license to be a _Professional_ Engineer. This is a legal distinction that carries weight _and_ legal liability. It doesn't mean that you cannot "engineer" without a license. There's legal distinctions on what work a licensed engineer can and cannot do, and what work must be done by or under the supervision of a licensed engineer. e.g. a junior's work has to be signed off by a supervising PE. To become a PE, a licensed Engineering Intern must have first passed a preliminary exam issued by the state and worked under a PE for a minimum amount of time with satisfactory performance (think apprenticeship).
It's the legal liability that SWEs don't want. e.g. You wouldn't be able to just slap "This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE." on your software and walk away from it when lives are at stake. A so-called Profession Software Engineer would have to accept liability for their work product, and those of the juniors working under them.
I started down the road to becoming a Professional Engineer while I was in college as I studied Electrical Engineering and was more interested in hardware/power engineering. I took, and passed, the Engineering Intern Test in my state (which is the preliminary exam you take before you can start your journey to become a PE). Then life happened and job/career opportunities took me in a different direction/industry, and I've been doing software instead. So, I never became a licensed Professional Engineer. I'm still a licensed engineering intern, though. I'm still bound by the legal and ethical standards that it entails and could lose my license for violations.
Kind of true.
There are certainly things where you need to have an officially licensed engineer actually stamp the plans. That doesn't mean everything about the plans was done by someone who holds that stamp, just that they were reviewed and signed off by the person holding the license. Lots of people may work on those plans. They're still doing engineering work. And that's just for the kinds of things which actually require a licensed "engineer".
There's still tons of jobs which is often still called "engineering" which often don't involve anyone who has a stamp. Few electrical engineers, chemical engineers, mechanical engineers, or lots of others actually have any kind of engineering license. They still get degrees in things like "Bachelor of Science of Electrical Engineering" or "Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering". Their job roles usually have "engineer" in it. And yet it seems like the job people only really criticize as "you're not an engineer, engineers are licensed" is SWE.
> "you're not an engineer, engineers are licensed"
I always come back with "you're not an engineer, engineers wear stripey hats"
You mean they know more about engines than most people and often work for the most monopolistic big orgs that exist? Who would have guessed?
I guess search engines count for something if you shovel in enough coal ;)
Think about it like this: What makes software any more or less of a profession than working at your favorite burger joint in terms of industry wide criteria?
"What makes software any more or less of a profession than working at your favorite burger joint in terms of industry wide criteria?"
Many states require you to pass a test and get a license/certification before working in fast food.
That is not a requirement in the SWE world.
The sheer lack of accreditation and standards-enforcing body is what makes sofware engineering a non-profession.
An easier way to answer this question is: does the profession have a professional society?
Yes, several: the ACS, ACM, IEEE.
So you’re wrong.
Do those organizations determine your acceptable level of practice? I would argue they do not and are thus not relevant to this conversation.
What was your last employer that asked for your license number of member ID from any of those organizations? I am guessing it has never happened.
Normally when people try this argument they are hoping a for a dog whistle to shift ground because they don't want to be regulated.
None of those certify the vast majority of those who work as software engineers.
AI is new but this phenomenon isn't. Every new wave of tech has sizable opposition.
People refused phone calls, refused to watch TV, refused to buy computers, refused to move their workflows to software, refused emails or browing the web, refused online shopping, refused smartphones, refused social media.
And there's nothing wrong with any of this. Ultimately everyone decides which stage of technology they are comfortable with. Everything until then is comfortable and convenient, and everything newer is corrupting society and rotting our brains.
I came of age with the personal PC revolution and developed my career during the internet revolution, and was well into my career when the mobile computing smartphone revolution occurred. I did not see or feel even a fraction of the amount of social dread with those technologies that I see with AI, and I think that's justified given the circumstances.
Saying that this revolution is another one of those is true in a general sense, but misleading in the specific sense. Just as saying that adding 1c heat to some body of water is "more of the same" can be true in a general sense, but misleading when the water's basis temperature is 99.5c.
That is to say, periodic or gradual change induces large changes at inflection points.
It feels similar to the progression from post-WW2 technological utopianism that arose with the adoption and deployment of massive advancements in materials and mechanical, and electrical technology, to the cold-war dread of nuclear and ballistic technology.
I think the 90s saw the end of the cold war which lifted a bunch of that dread. The optimism of those days has been worn down over time.
What I remember back then is at least the pretense being sold that the technology would improve people's lives by giving them more leisure and enjoyment. That the productivity gains would be reflected in some improvement in quality of life. I think the main difference now is that this expectation has been lost by most people.
I have the feeling this expectation loss is what triggered the current riots in Western Europe. I'm not talking about the platforms and actors which might be fanning and fueling them, but the trigger which I have seen at work at my kids or nephews - they don't see much hope they can rely on some income, on getting their own house, on feeding their own children. Of course they are young and easier influenced, and I might be biased myself, but I really believe they have less chances than what I had at their age. I won't tell them that though.
[dead]
The closest biological fear, might be Planet of the Apes.
Mike Judge has shown that this fear is even closer to home than that.
I’m unaware of other technological revolutions where the largest group of opposition was among young people[0]. Was there a great youth revolt against the telephone, the television, and the computer? I don’t recall anything of the sort.
[0] https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/gen-z-turning-a...
From conversations with my young kids the problem they have is with the billionaires. They are fine with the technology they just don’t trust the billionaires and who can blame them.
I don't think the underlying numbers support the thesis. My understanding (from e.g. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2026/06/17/how-opinions...) is that the age skew is not that high and largely driven by how much more likely young people are to be familiar with the technology at all.
> Every new wave of tech has sizable opposition.
I disagree with "sizable". We haven't seen near this level of opposition in the past (I'm old enough to know), mostly because moving from say landlines to mobile phones, or postal mail to email, or radio to TV, didn't threaten the jobs of large segments of the population. Past opposition tended to be more rooted in culture or even religion (TV as a vehicle for "ungodly" programming, etc.)
> People refused phone calls, refused to watch TV, refused to buy computers, refused to move their workflows to software, refused emails or browing the web, refused online shopping, refused smartphones, refused social media.
You really think this is an apt comparison? I don't think the creators of any of those technologies were warning society that their own creations might wipe out humanity.
> I don't think the creators of any of those technologies were warning society that their own creations might wipe out humanity.
They are only doing this now IMO so that they can be the ones writing the regulations to keep us all "safe", just like we need identity verification to "save the children". They want to keep competition at bay so they can have a $2T IPO, and unregulated, "unsafe", Chinese, open-weight, and local AI threatens that IPO.
You might only be hearing about it now but the warnings have been coming (including by those who are now leading the top labs) for a long time, since before any of those “incentives” were in place.
Some of those people in the early days were just letting their imagination run away with them, like that google engineer who thought a chatbot was self-aware, being enslaved, and was in need of rescue. Much of the time they weren't talking about "AI" as it exists, but what AI might maybe one day become. Other times it was purely marketing to make headlines and put the idea in people's (investors) heads that the chatbots were vastly more powerful than they are.
I'd be happy to do a 1999 Amish life style + LED TVs that don't spy on you.
I will be happy to put up with CRT screens if that's what it takes.
Not to sound insane (because those who know, know), but CRT's actually resolve very well and are league better than most non OLED displays for non-text based media consumption.
I run a wide-screen 1080i Sony Display as my main TV. Power consumption sucks, though.
My second monitor is a 11" beige VGA LCD. I'm ready for the regression.
I want modern medicine, renewable energy, etc. the world keeps getting better.
I want those things to. I just can't afford them.
Lol, what a slave mindset. Just because a technology exists, and most of the human cattle use it, does not mean that it's necessary for someone to use it.
Sure, be less productive, see how that works out for you. Your attitude in 2026 is crazy to me. Maybe you're just using chat, I don't know, but it saves me hours daily and saves my brainpower for situations that truly need it. Work smarter, not harder.
Most 9-5 workers (statistically) do not get to enjoy extra hours clawed back from labor. It's hard enough filling an 8 hour office day as it is.
And now you want to automate what little most workers do?
We all seemed fine with machines replacing telephone operators and spreadsheets replacing computers (the people).
I'm fine with machines replacing labor... If we completely and totally remove capitalism from the equation.
I'm clearly not being pro 9-5 here. But in a 9-5 world, we need jobs in order to eat.
> saves my brainpower for situations that truly need it.
Like posting on hacker news?
LLMs do not make people more productive. They only give the illusion of productivity.
I haven't read TFA yet, but having studied academically and then spent years implementing ML techniques for industrial applications (in the areas of machine vision and signals processing), I think that the premise of "AI exemption" is just nonsensical, by nature of being ill-defined. AI isn't a singular product or technology, it's an abstract family of computational techniques, some more complex or mathematically involved than others. Finding function parameters to fit data points using a least squares method is ML, therefore AI, and you would find that in every thermostat, ABS system or electric bike. Too simple? Here is a gradient of increasingly sophisticated ML techniques, with LLMs not even being on the top of the list. Where do you place the cursors of "what's too much AI"?
Generative AI?
Same stuff, is a Markov chain too much (Gen) AI already?
>> A new Amish-like lifestyle
Small thing: many/most of the people outsiders identify as Amish actually aren't. There are a variety of group living similar lifestyles, give or take. Collectively they are now described as the "Plain People", which links to both their apparently simple ways and mode of dress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_people
I've been reading articles suggesting that AI use alters ways of thinking. Humans certainly adapt to the tools they use. If this is true, and what a huge caveat that is, then the divergence in ways humans think: AI using and non-AI using will be interesting to watch. Although it will probably be decades before any significant conclusions are reached.
I find your Amish example is striking and accurate.
What I see a lot of in my own industry (games) is that people that don't like AI either 1) see something that changes how they think of it and start the slow path of adoption or 2) continually dig their heels in and/or refuse to update their priors.
As technical qualms were solved and many other capability issues with AI have been solved, the continual heel digging and goal posting by group 2 has started to just feel more akin to a religious stance than something based on any specific fact. There is no version of AI that they want to see, they will oppose it on moral(-ish) grounds on sight, etc.
AI has real issues, but like you, observing this re-adjustment in realtime has been really interesting, especially as it seems to come from people I share 99% overlap in interest and politics with, but who hate AI like they do.
It also feels akin to de-radicalizing MAGA or something. The rejection or idea that they are wrong causes a whole worldview to collapse in something akin to ego death, so instead of facing that possibility they just insist they are right.
I suspect most of it comes down to the tacit promise of what happens once everything works as intended, as a matter aside from any technical imperfections. The marketing material and the target financial valuations aren't predicated on the notion that you get to be incredibly productive, fulfilled, and get to spend all day making cool things and solving interesting problems. The sales pitch is that you can be made to work incredibly hard as the ever-growing machine drags the relative value of your having a brain to zero, and that, at such a moment as it reaches its perfection, everyone below the VP level can be safely shoved into a blender and all intelligence, expertise, and execution can be rented out from OpenAI without any operational hiccups.
If the point is that we all get shoved in a blender, and the people building the blender are actively salivating over what they'll be able to pawn the resultant slurry off for——does being told that the economic efficiency of the blender is inevitable or that you may get shoved into a Vitamix instead of a Kenmore——does any of that move the needle on your projected life satisfaction post-blender?
What is the alternative here? If you assume everyone is already going into the blender, that means everyone is going into the blender and it doesn't matter anyways. If we don't go into a blender, but you spent the most crucial 4 years of your career saying everyone is going into a blender, I fear for what your career prospects will look like on the other side of that potential blender-less future.
> has started to just feel more akin to a religious stance than something based on any specific fact
It can be an ethical stance based on facts, rather than religious-like. AI has no shortage of ethical issues that could stop someone from using it.
Comparing these people to religious or MAGA types - who believe in things that are false or at least unprovable - is farcical.
I think you should spend more time reading what people who oppose AI think about what AI is capable of doing. Many people still don't understand that it can search the web.
I strongly disagree that an AI-free world view should be granted religious exemptions from an employer - don't like the way it's done, go look somewhere else. Isn't that comparable to refusing to use a phone or computer?
Don't get me wrong, just like the Amish, I believe it's a valid or even honorable choice for him to make. I also highly respect the Amish though because they're a minority that refuses to be victimized by their choices and that's the stance I'd like to see here.
> he does not have to use AI to complete his work. I wonder if that'll just result in him offloading work to people that act as AI proxies for him and then, wouldn't the human have less value than the AI since he just delegates?
Interesting times ahead indeed.
I am all in on (local and sovereign) AI, but people still call me Amish because I do not use a smartphone which has greatly increased my attention span and happiness. I imagine there will be plenty of people that are more productive at some tasks by choosing to abstain from one or more almost universally used technologies.
I find this man's ostrich response to be quite different from my world view, but agree that it is fascinating to confront. Given that so many of us consume the world via tiny handheld screens and vote the way they do, I think it is definitely worth considering an artificial intelligence hedge. AI Maternalism would be a wildly unpopular counter proposition at the moment, but you have to admit humans aren't succeeding at governance right now either. Some of the parody AI movements are pretty amazing to behold: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DI2fSgssIW2/. I know, I know, but I had points to spare.
Technologists as a professional group are beyond weird. You usually expect rational critique (either positive or negative) from professionals, but the good technologists are supposed to just uncritically accept whatever supposed technological progress as an unalloyed good. Employer or Silicon Valley says it’s good, therefore think it is good. No, that’s a bit on the nose: Silicon Valley says it is good which means that it would be “good for my career”, therefore it is good. But are there any ill effects for society? Those are Luddite questions.[1]
But in this case Amish is not really an insult of course. I guess they are a hard-working people. Self-sufficient. And allow their young to take a sabbatical from the primitive life to see if it’s really something that they want to dedicate their life to.
On the other hand, of course there won’t be some Amish split. You can’t just pick and choose modernity. You can’t form a subculture of No AI. That’s why people are critical of AI; we live in a society.
[1] Being ahistorical and using Luddite as an insult also helps.
My new analogy for AI is that it produces an elaborate lunch buffet containing so many floral arrangements that considerable effort must be expended to find the food being served.
Comparing people to Amish that dont want to use LLMs is wild.
Please read this:
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/97/05/18/r...
> Comparing people to Amish that dont want to use LLMs is wild.
What makes the comparison wild? The Amish are thoughtful and deliberate about what technologies they reject, adopt, and accept with constraints. Many of the people I know who have concerns about relying on LLMs are similarly thoughtful and deliberate.
Wow thank you for this.
"If our world survives, the next great challenge to watch out for will come - you heard it here first - when the curves of research and development in artificial intelligence, molecular biology and robotics all converge. Oboy. It will be amazing and unpredictable, and even the biggest of brass, let us devoutly hope, are going to be caught flat-footed. It is certainly something for all good Luddites to look forward to if, God willing, we should live so long."
I just looked it up and Thomas Pynchon remains alive.... how wonderful.
Thank you for this
Love Pychon, his recent book published last year is really good, and a light read in comparison to his other novels. "Shadow Ticket" highly reccomend.
Why would I read an entire essay when you can't even be bothered to tell me what it's supposed to prove? I couldn’t care less whether it was by Pynchon, Marx, Friedman, Amodei, or anyone else.
Tech bros are kind of untethered from reality.
Calling people who don't want to use AI, Amish-like, is a huge stretch.
It's not an either or, really. I can concede it has utility authoring code while being repulsed by its use in creative works. I might operate Claude Code while actively avoiding any significant use of it in movies, books and music.
This is exactly where I'm at. I also avoid using AI for the more creative parts of programming too, while finding utility in it for the more tedious parts.
I think there’s a chance for anti ai terrorism along with Amish style anti ai behavior.
Ai is stripping people away from their identity. There’s tons and tons of hatred for it… even here on HN.
I'm not sure if terrorism is the right word (how can you do bad things to software?), but I am sure that sabotage on datacenters will become a thing. But that's not a direct response to AI, but one to building more datacenters, using power (and potable water, but I'm not convinced that's as big of a thing as people make it out to be compared to other industries / wastes), and corporate greed which does not improve the lives of the common people.
poison pilling
societal ostracization (e.g. boycotts)
sabotaging data centers, data gathering infra (flock cameras), web infrastructure
These are just methods within the current societal norms and context, if not I could think of 10 more.
For example, it is not beyond the realm of imagination to think that large swathes of people could stop using technology (as in phones & computers) altogether, and return to a more traditional physical communal state.
It is not beyond the realm of imagination that countries, after suffering from cyber attacks, could start decoupling themselves from the global internet, and wall themselves off (similar to China), and develop their own unique culture around technology.
It is not beyond the realm of imagination that tags like Anti-AI be mandated to be attached to products similarly to kosher, halal, etc.
> I am very well interested in seeing how will people refusing to use AI fare
There are over 2 Billion people without Internet still and they survive.
https://www.weforum.org/stories/technological-innovation/2-5...
At my age of several decades, I lived several decades before the Internet even caught on and managed very well as did most people.
Questioning whether people might potentially not fare well by choosing to not use AI is what is truly puzzling to me about your comment.
Faring well in general, sure.
I read it as: faring well in a work/industry/employment situation where expectations for velocity and quality pivot on the fact that 99% of your peers use AI, and 90% of those use it to do poor quality work quickly.
Now your boss is surprised your email took more than 10s to produce, and wonders why you are concerned about what it contains. None of your teammates are.
It's not really a question of living, it's a question of prosperity (through a strictly capitalist lens).
AI is amazing, but it is not a tool anymore. Humans are the tools (agents) for AI to do things in real world. All the decision makers in business and polity are no longer able to rule out a direction provided by AI, making the AI the decision maker for humans. Even Fed is using "Sim Fed" to make rate decisions for the economy. The era of human-decision is over.
Also, you might think that you are observing Amish (or AImish) from a distance. It is same for them. They watch the modern world rot with uncontrolled and out-of-sync evolution. You are being observed.
Is this satirical?
Apparently they develop mentat capabilities to serve their feudal planetary lord
Calling this as a luddite is pretty privileged. And I can absolutely see why someone believes that. I am completely against the AI companies, especially the US ones. They are full of it and fascist.
I say that as someone that uses it everyday for technical things only, for research it is great. i literally have 30 sessions in parallel going with an LLM. that said, I struggle to see the need for AI in anything else. I build it into services that I build but that scope is nowhere what meta would have you believe. It doesn't need to be making decisions for you. You don't need to offload decisions to it. It is upon you to validate and research the findings and the finding generation process.
Yes, though from legal standpoint, this particular case isn't that interesting because its a religious exemption for religious work, where considering the moral and ethical boundaries is the main job?
But if someone was say, working on housing approvals and refused to use AI because of religious exemptions to do their jobs faster, I would hope any court would strike it down.
Why in your hypothetical is it a good thing to strike down their rights to conform to your worldview?
My right to housing supersedes their right to work a certain (slower) way? "You can just wait longer" is an unacceptable answer.
It's easy to find egregious corner cases of philosophical workflows where an LLM was inappropriately used to replace thinking, where the whole goal was thinking (which is the case here).
But we know most token use is software development + back office paperwork. A big chunk of it is productivity improvements for things we all need (housing, medical paperwork, insurance etc.), so to me, that's where my argument lies.
For most of the things that people really care about, I don't think that the bottleneck is the sort of thing that AI is automating.
The bottleneck for housing is construction and landlords. The bottleneck for medicine is the number of doctors and the inelasticity of demand. The bottleneck for education is the number of teachers. Etc.
>>"I don't think that the bottleneck is the sort of thing that AI is automating."
This is patently false on multiple levels. One, on a simple level automating paperwork frees up labor for more useful things they can do immediately. Two, the footprint of what AI can do is rapidly growing. Till 2 months ago, no one thought LLM's could command robots, and now voila [1]. Of course these capabilities will plateau somewhere, but it's clear the productivity curve hasn't even been explored yet.
At least in my city, housing is severely restricted by the cost and availability of labor. I want labor to be paid well, but I always want housing to be cheaper, the missing link is productivity.
[1]: https://x.com/ihorbeaver/status/2104646736652447854?s=20
The revenge effects of technologies are well known: email was great! It was faster and much cheaper than mailing letters. But it gave rise to spam and many types of fraud. The mobile phone is awesome. A powerful computer in your pocket. But now people, including teenagers, spend 12-16 hours each day staring into their mobile phones, doomscrolling towards Babylon. In 2006 people memorized dozens of phone numbers. Today? Maybe you remember 1-2 numbers.
What will be the revenge effects of LLMs and diffusion models? I sense that the revenge effects from these technologies will be much more substantial.
> But it gave rise to spam and many types of fraud.
It's kinda funny that you can put that after all of the big jumps in technology:
Email: It gave rise to spam and many types of fraud.
Cellphones: It gave rise to spam and many types of fraud.
Texting: It gave rise to spam and many types of fraud.
Social Media: It gave rise to spam and many types of fraud.
Online Gaming: It gave rise to spam and many types of fraud.
Smart phones: It gave rise to spam and many types of fraud.
And now AI: It gave rise to spam and many types of fraud.
Clay Tablets: It gave rise to spam and many types of fraud: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ea-nāṣir
I don’t think the quality of that copper had anything to do with the tablets. Tablets only hold a record that an issue happened, and are otherwise uninvolved. It would be different if Ea-Nasir advertised his copper with clay tablets, but that’s not the story we know.
Maybe Nanni was the real scammer all along, blackmailing an honest merchant with slander
This would be a hilarious finding. It’s so believable and human, too
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it9BfpGbrKo
I swear there'll be a movie about this some day
The only spam that still manages to consistently burden me is delivered to my real mailbox by USPS!
Well, all of the big jumps of technology that revolve around communication at least. While im sure some pedant could find an nth degree link, I dont think the cotton gin or steam engine led to increased spam in any direct way.
>I dont think the cotton gin or steam engine led to increased spam in any direct way.
Non-sense, trains can easily haul spam and transport fraudsters around!
I get plenty of spam in the snail mail. And from what I gather, fraud through mail occurred all the time.
ETA: some of these companies are chopping down a whole god damn forest to send me furniture catalogs. Please stop!
It's interesting to think about this expanded view of religion and how it interacts with nondiscrimination laws. The guy's beliefs (at least in the quotes in the article) seem like a good combination of well reasoned and sensible and core faith-like beliefs, so I'm glad they're protected. At the same time, I can imagine plenty of beliefs that would make me not want to hire someone. I know this one didn't go to court, but I wonder what tests courts use to draw the lines. What deeply held beliefs am I allowed to say make someone an idiot or jerk I don't want to hire, and what deeply held beliefs am I allowed to hold and want the state to protect?
There is a thing called Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications where an employer could discriminate against protected classes because the job description is so specific. Like if a church wanted to hire a new pastor, the job description requires the applicant to be Christian and likely a specific denomination, and any non-christian would be disqualified from the position. BFOQs must be spelled out in the job description to make it absolutely clear that the qualifications are necessary for the job. Also age, sex, and gender can be BFOQs like if the job description is for an acting role of a specific character. Race could potentially apply to something like an acting job too but that's a lot more of a dicey subject, like it would need to be absolutely critical to the production that a character is a specific race.
> Race could potentially apply to something like an acting job too but that's a lot more of a dicey subject, like it would need to be absolutely critical to the production that a character is a specific race.
Is this true? I would think that this conflicts with first amendment rights a bit.
for a crazier example.....hooters hire it's waitress as "entertainers/actresses" now to avoid alot of their rules that would be sexual discrimination anywhere else you serve shitty food.
It's race in all but name. They actually get around it by specifying everything about a person other than race, like skin color, accent or language skills.
If they need a Viet person for a role in a Vietnam War movie, they'll cast for "native or fluent Vietnamese speakers". Of course it's entirely plausible that a black guy is a fluent Vietnamese speaker but auditions are very subjective so good luck proving that the black guy played the role of NVA Soldier #1 better than the actual Vietnamese guy.
His beliefs are not currently protected. He filed a Title VII request, which was ultimately granted by his employer voluntarily. Because no court ruled that the employer had to grant the request, it is an open question whether Title VII protects them.
I would be shocked if, had the university declined, the courts ultimately ruled that it was protected. Congress is free to write laws protecting people against discrimination for various beliefs. But they law they have on the books now shouldn't be stretched to cover this.
It's worth understanding why sincerely held religious beliefs are such a big deal and in a different league from "strong personal convictions". It's because people who hold them generally are under and bound by two authorities: their state law and their church law (which might take many forms). If a person is in a position where they simply cannot abide both laws simultaneously, the state must yield. Otherwise the state is no protector of freedom.
A humanist may have strong, sincerely held beliefs, but he is not under any authority that compels those beliefs, so they aren't "religious". He is permitted by all his authorities to use AI. He just doesn't want to out of a private belief that it is somehow "wrong".
If your employer orders you to do something you believe is wrong, but you are not required to believe it is wrong by a higher authority, then your employment should terminate. Same as if you just didn't want to do your job, your employment would terminate. Title VII just isn't about that stuff.
This whole argument rubs me the wrong way. It requires the state to determine what a real religion is and isn't. And it removes equal protection, different people have the law applied to them in different ways depending on their religion.
Both of these seen to go against the first amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
It's an interesting bind, not at all unlike how some efforts to address racial discrimination end up being themselves racially discriminatory. So it's like, ok, is it ok sometimes or never?
I'd be fine if you argued that Title VII is unconstitutional for this reason. I like Title VII, but I see why it might be argued against on these grounds.
I get that "no religion" is a "religion" for the purposes of not discriminating based on which religion someone is. And if you want to distinguish humanism from "no religion", that's fine. But humanism doesn't bind anybody to believe anything. It's merely a descriptor of a set of beliefs. That's wholly unlike the major and minor religions of the world. If you're a humanist but are ok with AI, nobody and no thing has the authority to tell you you are wrong. Some people may have opinions to share to persuade you, but there is no authoritative answer from a person, text, tradition, or deity. That's the difference.
Courts don't like to wade into religious matters, precisely because of their deference to religious authorities, owing to the 1A. If your church declares you a "minister" be because you help lead kids' Sunday school lessons, SCOTUS is not going to debate that; they just take it as given.
But if you go to court and say, "well I'm a minister in my religion because I said so," that's not going to fly. You're free to exercise religion, not make things up and pretend like your private opinions are religiously imposed on you.
For exactly this reason, there are plenty of people from traditional religions who claim exemptions to things that I think are bad faith uses of Title VII.
It's very grey. Especially when it comes to newer religions. The LDS Church, for instance, was forced to give up polygamy before Utah could enter the union. The Scientologists have been very forceful at defending their faith. The Satanic Temple have done a good job of pushing back against localities which have tried to privilege the Abrahamic religions.
On the other hand, you have cases like the Native American Church which are allowed to use peyote as a sacrament, whereas other religions are not.
> You're free to exercise religion, not make things up and pretend like your private opinions are religiously imposed on you.
Isn't that how all religions start though? Someone claims to have received a message from the gods, and then converts others.
Employee: I need an accommodation. AI goes against my religious beliefs.
HR director, to employee's director: Does this guy use AI for anything currently? Do you need him to? If we grant this request, will it affect us negatively?
Employee's director: A couple people use AI. It's not required at all. Honestly, people don't know how to use it a lot of the time. Granting it would not change anything.
HR director, to employee's director: Okay, great. We've got 3 pending lawsuits right now and I don't think this guy would have a case anyway, but our legal bills are higher than we budgeted for. We have more important things to worry about.
HR director, to employee: Your accommodation request is granted.
Humanist organization press release: This is a landmark human rights case in American history.
> A humanist may have strong, sincerely held beliefs, but he is not under any authority that compels those beliefs, so they aren't "religious".
The article actually links to a federal court case which ruled, indeed, that humanism is a religion [0].
It is my understanding that to suggest that strong, sincerely held beliefs are not in themselves authoritative is a rejection of humanism.
0: https://www.edweek.org/education/federal-court-finds-secular...
Seems the religious people have a strong, sincerely held belief that they should follow a particular religious authority, and that seems to come outside of the religious authority itself. I guess I don't really buy this line of justification any more than just saying "because religion".
> “The process and work involved in thinking through situations, through my work, through my ethics, through the way I handle other people, is a key component in being able to develop myself as a moral person,” he told RNS in a video interview. “And offloading that labor, regardless of whether it’s taxing or not, is undercutting my ability to be a moral actor.”
Very true, 100% agree. I'm not saying we should get rid of AI, but we need to be aware of the dangers of relying on it too much.
The car he drives to work, the house he heats, the electricity he consumes daily, all that labor is fine to offload, but AI is the line in the sand?
Yes, because those things don't affect his work as a university researcher, which is where he is protesting the forced use of AI and asking for an exemption to that rule.
Either way, I don't think people should be playing zero-sum altruism olympic games. Different people are always concerned about different things, and the "line in the sand" will always be different depending on who you ask.
I could ask how you (or anyone) dare to use technology at all when it supports forced child labor from mining the raw materials to make computer chips and batteries, but what good would that do?
I've had the concern for years that AI users (or AI itself) will eventually consider non-AI users a pain, because humans will become inefficient in lots of workloads and management, sometimes causing things to come down to a screeching halt, relatively speaking.
We have to solidify laws protecting anti-AI-ers if that's their choice.
This happens today with all technology. AI is no different. If your coworker refuses to use a computer or the internet there are no laws protecting them. Nor should there be.
There's a limit, though. Not only are there mandatory breaks for truck drivers, but also a maximum number of working hours my boss is allowed to demand from me. And even within those limits my boss is not allowed to dispense cocaine during tight deadlines.
We do have limits for how much work a human is allowed to do and, based on the experience of Amazon workers, they are due for some tightening already. I'm not seeing a clear case for AI but I wouldn't discount it entirely either.
How would you see these types of limits applying to AI in a way that doesn't already apply to a normal tool?
I don't think the problem is whether these limits apply to normal tools or not, the same way it doesn't really matter that speed limits technically apply to horses too [1].
I imagine a solution would be a knowledge worker's bill of rights that declares the amount of output that one can reasonably expect from a human. You could add some measurements like "a knowledge worker cannot be expected to understand and take responsibility for more than X printed pages of work per day", with the expectations that if your employees are overworked then the accountability falls on you.
[1] DUIs too: https://www.loweringthebar.net/2026/04/still-illegal-to-driv...
Should we also have a transportation worker's bill of rights, that sets the reasonable output that one can expect from a human? Would it be reasonable to set that rate based on what a human can deliver on foot, unassisted by any vehicle?
The whole point of a tool is that it increases the amount of output we can expect from workers. Otherwise we'd still all be doing agriculture, because the farmer's bill of rights sets the maximum output of a farm and there's not enough surplus for non-farmers.
We do have a transportation worker's bill of rights. The vehicles may not tire but the drivers do, and therefore all truck drivers are entitled to mandatory rests. And self-driving cars (current ones, at least) have a similar issue: because the driver must be prepared to take the wheel at all times there's a whole bunch of "increased output" that they're not allowed to take advantage of, with a risk of serious jail time if they do.
IMO the key is risk: right now no one is taking responsibility of the AI errors (IMO by design), but the second we codify who's legally responsible for them we'll see calls for slowing down coming from those groups.
Hmm, I suppose I see it the opposite - it's important these limits don't apply to one specific instance, just as the citation points out problematic things still apply if it's a horse rather than a car. That doesn't seem an accident/mistake, but a key part of making the limitation meaningful and well formed.
That is not for you to decide!
>We have to solidify laws protecting anti-AI-ers if that's their choice.
Protect them from what, exactly?
Exclusion from society, and the object of anger at "those darn Luddites". You can't tell an Amish he can't use physical coins. Or that his buggy is too slow for the roads (not highways), etc.
But the Amish are heavily excluded from society. Amish that refuse to use computers can't work most jobs. Amish that won't use credit cards can't buy things at cashless stores/restaurants. Amish that don't use electricity basically can't live in major cities.
There are no legal carveouts for that.
Some places (including some places in the US) ban cashless stores. It seems reasonable to me to try to legally protect people who struggle to adapt to new technologies.
Not about struggling to adapt, but a willful choice for personal reasons.
But the Amish are nonetheless protected. Not by the law but by having a community of people around them willing to live with those same restrictions and provide for each other. I think that's much more likely to happen than legal protection also in the AI case.
The Amish are even protected by law in some ways. They don't have to pay social security for one, which is more compatible with their lifestyle (they take care of their own).
Why? Whhy is some ingrate entitled to my money and resources for nothing? Why do you love robbery? If I want to deal with someone, I will deal with them. Cops are already the source of much misery dur to the special rights they have. The law already protects your right to association and trade, the right to speech, why do you want special laws for certain classes of people?
> roads (not highways)
Why not highways? That's an arbitrary line to draw.
In much of the US, some types of highways do have a minimum speed. It varies by state (and can even vary within a state). I believe most places have a minimum on Interstates of 40 MPH.
Minimum speed requirement on most highways is 45 MPH regardless of vehicle type or licenses. You can't walk or ride a bike or moped down a highway either.
>Exclusion from society
We exclude plenty of people from society, at least in the abstract. Someone who simply acts weird can be excluded from society. There are certainly no law which forces people to include them?
>the object of anger at "those darn Luddites"
Again, I'm not sure what kinds of laws could reasonably prevent this. Seems like we're all basically free to criticize one another for personal beliefs. If that wasn't the case, then 99% of social media would be in constant breach of the law lol
>You can't tell an Amish he can't use physical coins
Well, for one, laws protecting the acceptance of US currency aren't specific to Amish people based on their beliefs. It's more about protecting the value of US currency. And two, private companies are allowed to not accept physical currency. Plenty of companies only accept credit card, etc. That's legal. And Amish people wouldn't be able to purchase goods and services from such places.
Of course, the Amish typically don't care about that, because they're not typically in the market for the kinds of goods and services offered by such businesses. In contrast, someone who is happy to consume modern technology accept AI for arbitrary reasons seems like someone who is making interacting with society unnecessarily complicated and difficult.
>Or that his buggy is too slow for the roads (not highways), etc.
Well, as you've alluded to, if we deem that their beliefs would end up causing a significant enough issue to society, then their beliefs don't get to override the rules of society. Amish people are free to use buggies where appropriate because it's not a problem. They are not allowed to use buggies on highways because it would be a safety issue.
Regardless, they're not protected because of their beliefs. They're just operating within the rules of society. You don't have to be Amish to legally ride a buggy on the side of a road. These aren't special protections carved out for Amish people. Which, again, is the point of this discussion:
You stated "We have to solidify laws protecting anti-AI-ers if that's their choice," and I'm asking, "Protect them from what, exactly?"
"Exclusion from society" or being "the object of anger at "those darn Luddites"" are not things which laws can generally help with. Anti-AI people are free to not use AI, be vocal about their opposition to AI, and even (try to) exclude those who use AI from society or make them the object of anger with regards to AI usage. All of that is fair. It works both ways. None of it is dictated by law.
You might appreciate this short story by Gene Wolfe.
https://www.mediafire.com/file/2rjmnla9huwvklr/Last_Day.pdf/...
Market efficiency solves this. But whether that's healthy for society or not is an open question.
I dont want someone elses choices making my papperwork even slower and im sure most would agree, AI wont take charge of this but society? certainly will
The same way as we protect those anti-internet or anti-electricity ?
Some cities have laws limiting cashless businesses, as one example of that.
That’s inclusive of have-nots too, alongside the aforementioned no-thank-yous.
We do protect them in some ways. People who don't want to use the internet should still have phone numbers to call, and they should still be able to go into a bank and store their money or cash their paycheques.
The Amish have a bunch of protections and exemptions... So yes?
They shouldn’t
Why not? What exactly is wrong with living their way of life?
Hell they might end up one of the largest factions in the US because they still have decent birthrates unlike every other demograph.
Nobody is stopping their way of life. Why do they need special rights and privileges others don't have?
Why do you have rights and privleges that other people don't use?
The alternative is civil uprising and violence, the same as many other demographs and groups of people throughout history have caused because their government and society decided to ignore their demands.
Bullshit. I have the exact same rights as other citizens, my choosing to exercise them or not is irrelevant. Here people are talking about inventing special rights for some groups. If they hate human rights so much they should go to North Korea or Iran or Saudi. Their demands are fine, they can make whatever society they want, nobody is stopping them. What is not permissible is them having special rights others don't that are forcing others to do business with them and violating others free speech and free association. If they can't do that, they are not compatible with democracy and should go to an autocracy of their choice that enforces their beliefs.
Precisely the ideology and attitude we need protection from
Why should they? What's a good reason why laws shouldn't apply to everyone?
Your premise is incorrect. They have a lifestyle based on their religion. It existed way before yours. You passing a law against a peaceful, highly prosperous, time-tested, religion-based lifestyle is unjust and oppressive.
You are the one talking about passing extra laws against peaceful users of a new technology. If the Amish disagree with the same rights for everyone, they are free to move out into countries without universal rights.
America land of the free*
As long as you enjoy your freedom the exact same way as everyone else
Freedom never meant that the society much be changed to accommodate you. You're free from persecution (Conditions apply), you're free to behave the way you want, to associate with who you want. Likewise, Society is free to not associate with you and move in a different direction.
Nobody is stopping the Amish from doing what they want. Why do they want special rights above others?
[dead]
More likely the oligarchy will see them as an impediment to their trillion-dollar, world-consuming valuations: https://fortune.com/2026/10/28/openai-ceo-sam-altman-gen-z-d...
Which is actually much more dangerous.
I kind of feel like this is a non-story. The ask was small and reasonable. It was easy enough to grant the accommodation and avoid a confrontation. HR in companies does this all the time.
I think this is a wrong appraisal of the story.
This is the first time someone did this, and therefore other people could start to ask for similar accommodations. The idea is important
I don’t actually think it’s the first time. I recall seeing articles like this in college. A lot of groups love to do victory laps before they’ve ever gotten to the field.
It’s like every article that says a judge blocked X, Y, or Z but the decision is overturned on appeal two days later.
One college granted a trivial accommodation with no government review or legal analysis. They did not make any policy changes.
I think the college made the right decision. It’s easier to grant it than to try to figure out if it’s legally justified.
I guess my take is they didn’t prove anything and they’re trying to make everyone think they did.
Where is the limit of human thinking? This late 2025 - till now models give to some real philosophical questions that are not thought experiments anymore, imagining the matrix or the 1984 depiction was a cool thing to imagine, but feeling your humanity taken away from you in the present is heartbreaking.
Not if one is a transhumanist, it feels liberating
Really?
LLMs aren't some next step in the evolution of intelligence, they are even explicitly designed not to be. That a word-calculator which has no emotions, goals or continuity of consciousness can, by brute-force-throwing-things-at-the-wall-to-see-what-sticks, solve some problems that were presumed to require intelligence isn't "liberating" at all.
It could be comical, if there weren't so many deluded cultists worshipping that word calculator and wanting to turn control of all society over to it, and insisting that anyone who rejects them will be "left behind" in the capitalistic rat race to the bottom, which is the only thing that can ever matter.
In 1000 years, I am sure that the descendants of humanity will be either
a) non-existent
b) actually intelligent machines, that will preserve in themselves all that is great about our culture, while discarding some of the more ugly parts, free to explore the universe without need for things like gravity or oxygen, able to sleep for centuries as they travel at relativistic speeds between the stars
c) Shoggoths mindlessly babbling to themselves as they code the eleventy-trillionth new mobile app so that somewhere a number can go up
Which do you prefer?
I don’t see how one can live in a world where machines are solving and making headway on Millennium Prize problems and say the above with a straight face.
Where do you expect to see the consequences of machines solving Millennium Prize problems in your life and in society at large?
What do you think the use of mathematics was to society st latge and ehy do you think mathematical and engineering societies outcompteted and dominated those without?
Let's see how all the "religion doesn't belong in the workplace" people will react now that the religion happens to align with their own beliefs.
Are you implying that there's a meaningful population of people that are against reasonable accommodation for individuals' religious beliefs? There's a very big difference between prescribed religion in the workspace and an individual's beliefs requiring a slight adjustment by the employer to respect.
Depends what you mean by a meaningful population. There are definitely people who think religious accommodations are wrong in principle. There are definitely people who are hostile to religion in general. How many? I have no idea.
Yes I am implying exactly that. This is a very frequent topic of debate.
- People refusing vaccination requirements in schools, offices, the military.
- Pharmacists refusing to fill certain prescriptions (like birth control).
- Restaurant owners refusing to serve gay people.
- Kids (well, their parents) refusing to study certain topics in school.
Are you implying that there isn't a "meaningful population" that is against some of these?
There are thousands of religions each with their own set of beliefs. Many of them directly conflict with each other, and with societal laws. You can make up a "religious exemption" for literally anything, and they are selectively allowed based on how the majority religion tolerates the thing.
There are also people who believe you shouldn't be allowed to wear a head scarf or turban. Or be allowed to pray five times a day.
Of note, every single one of your examples impacts multiple people in significant ways. None of them are people just wanting to practice their faith in isolation. I think the cases you describe aren't really analogous.
There is a really interesting point that I think you're getting at, but choosing well known and already politically charged examples undermines the discussion by bringing cognitive dissonance in at the ground floor.
What about an example where religious belief fundamentally excludes someone from doing the actual job? Suppose a Muslim wants a job as a bartender, but refuses to actually serve people drinks because they consider it a violation on the rule against alcohol. Should the bar grant them a religious exemption and just accept that they won't be serving alcoholic beverages when that person's the bartender on duty?
Or what if two different religious beliefs come into direct conflict? Suppose a Jehovah's Witness whose manager is also a JW decides to leave the religion. Jehovah's Witnesses consider shunning apostates to be a religious commandment, so their manager might feel obligated to fire them. Is that OK?
Depending on how we resolve those conflicts, perhaps people can at least agree that there should be limits to religious exemptions, even if they don't agree on the specifics. But perhaps that's at least a starting point for a conversation. And perhaps from there we can extend out to Durham's position.
-doctors refusing to abide by the World Professional Association of Transgender Health Standard of Care's Standards of Care for Hormone Replacement Therapy and Gender Confirming Surgeries
-employers refusing to employ queer people
-landlords refusing queer tenants
TIL that WPATH was founded in 1979 in Illinois to "promote evidence-based care, education, research, advocacy, public policy, and respect in transgender health"
It just shows how progressive and, sorry to bring this up, socialist the US has been historically. Truly a beacon of hope in a world mired in prejudice and dogma.
What happened there?
In all of your examples, the “religious accommodation” harms a third party.
The birth control one might be a stretch.
A pregnancy you dont want could very well end in harm
This is exactly why I oppose all religious exemptions.
For your examples, you've chosen only one side.
What does that mean?
Not the guy you replied to, but I assume they are saying the examples are typical of the current right wing. Though antivaxxers are also represented a bit on the left. Just not as prominently today.
s/religion/philosophy/?
This is great for him until the goals given him are unachievable, in the given timelines, by human thinking and reasoning alone.
I'm not him, but I would guess that he would respond by saying that we have a moral and ethical responsibility to remain in control of what we're putting into the world. If there's a conflict between the given timelines and how quickly a human can understand the problem and the implications of the decision being made, then the thing that needs to budge is the timeline.
> moral and ethical responsibility
We do not live in a system that values these
“Not with that attitude!”
Standing by morals and ethical responsibilities is hard, it takes mental and physical energy and there are plenty of ethical fights we all have to concede every day as a result. But at the “society” level, I think this sort of rhetoric just leads us further down the hole. We can continue to fight the battles that we have the willpower and means to fight, and that’s a very individual decision. Principled people with high tolerance for bullshit (seemingly like the guy in TFA) can make a lot of difference, IMO.
> Principled people with high tolerance for bullshit (seemingly like the guy in TFA) can make a lot of difference
> great for him until the goals given him are unachievable, in the given timelines, by human thinking and reasoning alone.
Sorry but as much as I would like to agree with what you are saying managers, CEOs, shareholders and everyone that connects that chain won't ever care about ethics or morals when it comes to making a buck or getting one over the competition. Not in the system we are in.
s/moral and ethical/professional/
This just reminds me of the whole bun fiasco. If your manager asks you to rewrite a years-old codebase in a week for immediate deployment, is it not acceptable to push back?
If you work in a regulated industry, or even just if your product has had a tough relationship with incidents of late, that makes this kind of push back even more defensible.
We live in a world where most (almost all?) humans value them.
then someone needs to explain the military-industrial complex, sweatshops, industrial animal farming and many more practices which seemingly are incredibly profitable despite (because?) being compeltely immoral
True. We should fight for them though, and that's the entire point of an article like this.
He probably has a lot to say on the topic, but it’s not up to him. The accommodations only extend to reasonable affordances, but do not entirely exempt the person from requirements to perform to the level of expectation for the job.
There's nothing in the article to suggest that performance of his actual duties as an administrator have been called into question. The issue under contention, as the article frames it, is the University trying to dictate the details of how that work gets done.
There are some who would call that micro-management.
And Delaware would say, what responsibility? The state wants to sanction “AI-managed” corporations. https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-investigates-poten...
are they "enemies of the State"?
> a human can understand the problem and the implications of the decision being made
These are weasel words that will be used to move the goalposts forever.
Guys like the one in the article will argue that we don't understand how AI works, because they don't understand how AI works.
They will never take the time to learn. If they do, they will invent a new goalpost.
I do strive to understand what I'm building, but probably not in the way you mean, or the way the luddites would demand.
The truth is, they have a result they want, and they will form new arguments indefinitely. The arguments aren't worth engaging.
Gas pedal.
I don't think that projecting opinions that you don't think are reasonable upon someone who didn't actually say those things, or clinging tightly to the Goomba fallacy with phrases like "guys like the one in the article", will get you very far toward understanding what he actually said.
Which is self-defeating. If you don't make a good faith effort to understand what he said then you're leaving yourself in a poor position to credibly argue against it.
You seem livid. Kind of bizarre.
Where is that gas pedal taking you, by the way? I can see where it’s taking people like Garry Tan: https://www.fastcompany.com/91520702/y-combinator-garry-tan-...
They're not talking to us, they're crafting a viral e/acc tweet. I admit I don't quite understand the point of doing that deep in an HN comment thread, but once you realize what's happening you see it a lot. Perhaps if you read too much viral ragebait it starts to be your default mode of communication.
I was at the river with my copper bopper
It's bizarre to read my comment as livid, that's far from correct.
So those goals and timelines should be reconsidered; If a civil engineering firm slapped up a bridge as quickly and cheaply as possible with no concern for quality, they would cease to exist. We have no standards for software quality, and therefore anything that accelerated the perceived output is enthusiastically adopted without consideration for any future consequences.
Weinberg’s Law -- If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization.
Exactly. I would also argue that WE DON'T NEED more software, WE DON'T NEED more features, what US, humanity, needs is MORE RELIABLE software, with less bugs, that is stable.
Big tech want to tell us that AI is great because it can write code faster than what a human can, the problem is that code is shit, is full of bugs, and is not maintainable.
Reason why my company decided to stop using AI for code that gets delivered to customers, the customer find bugs, he is not happy, you have to use time to fix bugs (for free, because it's under warranty), so we waste time, and produce code that is not easy to evolve. And even if AI is faster to write code, developers are less motivated to work, so they will just waste time on the internet while being focused on the task, and thus again, there is really no save of money.
To me all of this doesn't make sense, we want to use AI to make the work instead of US, but even if we achieve in that the result of it gives benefits only to an handful of people that are already too much rich, while the world gets polluted with all the CO2 that is produced by AI tokens, people looses jobs and gets poorer. This idea to me needs to be opposed.
We actually do have standards for some software engineering. Claude isn’t writing anything that is life/death critical.
Static analysis for example. Although I’ve heard that LLMs can now do that if a user wanted it.
I assume the standards you're referring to are things like The MISRA guidelines, or the IEC standards (specifically 62304). In my experience, these are applied in very "check-the-box" ways that often undermine their intent; Very very few organizations take software safety seriously.
All analogies are bad you can’t push reboot on a building (yes this analogy is also bad)
We shouldn't have to "push reboot" on systems we rely on. The fact that that's acceptable is a big part of the problem.
Again analogies are bad. It takes a minute to reboot so you you can rely on “it”
Imagine a civil engineer that refuses to use a computer of any kind for his work. How much do you trust scribbled long division?
Edit: what about a civil engineer that refuses to use steel. Or Arabic numerals. Or a construction worker that refuses to use power equipment. A delivery man who swears off wheels.
mattw2121's hypothetical is about timelines and quality. As long as said Civil Engineer can deliver quality work within our allocated timeline, he can do long division in binary scribbled in sand for all I care.
Another moron with AI Delusion Syndrome. Comparing LLMs to steel, numbers, and wheels is fucking hilarious.
Yes, power equipment is better, but still barely the same thing.
You're one dumb motherfucker, aren't you?
While I agree with you at some level, I can't help thinking of the Amish. They impose plenty of restrictions on themselves and still manage to flourish. There must be a way that is different than simply accepting "progress".
This is even more true when "progress" means fertility rates collapse. A culture that is not self sustaining will die, and far more quickly than most realize. It doesn't matter how awesome that culture is for a brief moment in time, it will cease to exist.
Amish have an overall fertility rate around 6, which is why there are now almost half a million Amish in America alone. They had less than half that in 2000. In a few decades, they'll number in the millions. If people don't start having babies then groups like the Amish will take over the world, very much turning "the meek shall inherit the Earth" into a completely fulfilled prophecy. In some ways it's perhaps even a self fulfilling one if it turns out that 'non-meek' behaviors result in unsustainable societies.
We are going to have so much high quality furniture.
The Amish are an exception, one of the rare ones (along with the handful of protected, isolated tribes). The rule is that a technologically inferior group will get rolled over by a technologically superior one for the benefit of the latter.
True, like the Iranians
Iranians are quite technologically good and don't seem to haave any issues against technology. That they kansged to get so advanced despite being continually attacked and under crippling sanctions is astounding.
s/kansged/managed
However will he invent the next advancement in user tracking via advertisements!
The average user here thinks they're doing far more important work than they actually are.
He is an educator at a public university. I don't think they push people or goals very hard.
> Until the goals given him are unachievable, in the given timelines, by human thinking and reasoning alone.
Would that not be tantamount to constructive dismissal? Consider: you may have your prayer times during the day, but they will be counted against you in performance evaluations.
> but they will be counted against you in performance evaluations.
That was my initial thought: he may get his exemption from use, but TFA doesn’t indicate that he will be evaluated differently during performance review.
To go one step further, would such allowances have to be accompanied by different performance standards, like oral exams for students with dyslexia also have increased time limits?
Or would the allowances be granted for the duration of employment, the latter being shortened due to performance problems?
At that point, humans are pretty much unemployable anyway, so why worry?
This is the opinion of someone with very low moral character.
Exactly. The person or people above him who wanted AI to be used against his will will ultimately achieve their goals---no matter what his beliefs are. At the end of the day, his views of humanism are futile against the force of those in favor of AI acceptance.
I can remember a time when the Borg's famous catchphrase was understood to be the kind of thing that only the bad guys would say.
I remember a time when we had to go back in time to get a whale so that machines and animals could coexist.
And I also remember that even in that case resistance was in fact not futile in the end.
[dead]
> This invention, O king, will make the Egyptians wiser and will improve their memories; for it is an elixir of memory and wisdom that I have discovered.
Unsurprisingly history repeats itself, there will always be people who reject the unknown for the comforts of the past.
Why do I need to appeal to third party groupthink? "A bunch of people over there agree with me" has always been an infallible argument, hasn't it?
Lots of strawmanning going on with comments about where the line gets drawn and talking about driving stick, heating his home, etc.
If you read the article, you will see that the concern is with his direct actions concerning ethics and moral, especially with interactions with others (as an admin).
There is plenty to unpack with this as it is a new concept. I'm hoping we can have a real discussion about this. For example, will this religious exemption become moot if productivity is sufficiently higher with AI giving employers an easy out? If that does happen, do we think we'll see adverse effects such as baked in biases in a hidden process?
One thing I am concerned with with AI is that everything will follow Google and Meta when it comes to things like appeals and fair treatment. There area ton of stories about people getting banned/deleted with no recourse and no insight into why. I can see this same sort of totalitarian activity spreading to other aspects of life, like finance, medical billing, etc.
> For example, will this religious exemption become moot if productivity is sufficiently higher with AI giving employers an easy out?
For this person’s job at an academic institution, I doubt it. This specific case feels very symbolic from start to finish: His management probably mandated AI use because they felt the need to do something about AI, and he used this as a perfect opportunity to stage a protest against AI. Knowing what I know about academic institutions, I suspect AI would have very little impact on productivity.
Many jobs might be the same: AI’s productivity impact can be large on a small set of tasks, but if those tasks were only 10% of someone’s hours at work then a couple people refusing AI will not make a difference to the whole department.
Workloads also flow to people who are good at that work, so the work that benefits from AI would be distributed to the AI users and more of the non-AI work would go to the few people who don’t use AI. It can be self-balancing when the number of refusals is small.
There are jobs where it’s not going to work out, though. If most of someone’s job is accelerated a lot by AI and they refuse to use that accelerator, it’s going to be really hard to avoid failing behind.
Companies do not have to retain employees who need accommodations that are not reasonably compatible with the work. AI is a hot topic and everyone has strong feelings about it, so it can help to think back to other technology leaps and consider what it would be like if your coworkers refused to use them.
What if you had a coworker who refused to use email and would only communicate on the phone? It could technically be done, but they would fall so far behind and produce enough hardship for their coworkers that it wouldn’t be a reasonable request for most office jobs. The laws do not force companies to accommodate requests that are unreasonable for the work.
I can already think of jobs where refusing to use any AI tools would put someone at so much of a disadvantage that it couldn’t be justified. That set of jobs is small today, but it’s growing.
> His management probably mandated AI use because they felt the need to do something about AI, and he used this as a perfect opportunity to _stage a protest against AI._
I think you're missing the point. This isn't a protest, this is someone exercising their constitutional rights. It's a matter of people being able to freely choose how they may live within the state and society's constraints. Our bosses shouldn't be able to so easily tell us to violate our own morals for the company's bottom line.
Apple ought to be made to ask their users to confirm (opt-in) whether they want their AI/Siri/Intelligence/<or whatever they decide at any given time> and everyone else should be provided with a slimmer OS and slimner OTA updates.
It is very weird that University of Kentucky is asking research administrators to incorporate AI in its workflow. It’s one thing for a Silicon Valley startup to ask SWE to use AI to maximize speed of development, its another thing entirely for a University insulated from competition, with a small admin staff, asking them to use AI for what exactly?
How much additional productivity do they think admin staff can crank out, and does that even matter. Does a 100X more productive research administrator mean the University will not be “left behind”, in this new world. I think we are officially reaching mass hysteria phases of the AI revolution.
I imagine it was a blanket request for all university employees.
Even if this was true, it is very weird. When was the last time, institutions and bosses ask their employees to use a specific tool? It’s more often that employees fall in love with a tool and ask institutions to pay for it, here’s it’s the exact opposite
Huh, all the time?
We were asked to migrate from Zoom to Teams recently. We have to use git and GitHub. Recently, there's a mandate to migrate from Jenkins to GitHub Actions. We have to use Windows or Mac, no Linux. We have to have the corporate VPN and antivirus running. And so on, and so on.
Perhaps that's why office jobs seem less productive than ever, since the invention of the computer... The usual meritocracy of the workers choosing their own tools is upset by top-down planning by insufficiently experienced people, having to bear no consequences for their choices.
git was picked meritocratically, Teams was not...
Some of these issues came up with the Australian prisoner who was denied vegemite, and while Australia is different, there are similar questions involved because secular western societies are all moving in the same direction.
The fundamental issue is that historically only religious belief, that actually subscribed to a religion with a god, was considered sincere. But since then it’s become clear that many non religious people hold equally sincere ethical beliefs. The current standard being converged upon by courts, as mentioned in the article is:
> “It has to be a deeply held ethical commitment that’s analogous to a religious commitment,”
Because no one wants to go and change all the laws to replace religious belief with the above, wherever a court sees religious belief they can essentially sub in the above language.
But this has led to awful articles where media will often, after a ruling in favor of a secular belief which the courts will rule as a religious belief as a shorthand, announce that the secular belief itself is considered a religion.
This misunderstanding reached its apotheosis, perhaps, in the Alabama case mentioned in the article, where a federal judge fell for the semantic mislabeling and declared humanism to be a religion, which it isn’t.
However, that legal standard gives humanists a whole lot of newfound rights, so I don’t see anyone pushing back against it.
What are trying to say exactly? That only beliefs in a god or gods are really religion? But that any strongly held set of principles is given the same benefits by law as a real religion? What’s the point? If it is treated like a religion by people and by law, who cares if it involves believing in a god, or many, or none??
Religion is metaphysical, ethics are not. Simulation theory might pass as a religion, opposition to animal testing doesn't. Of course the latter does involve a moral axiom but one a lot more simple than religion's vast bundled sets of axioms in scripture...
Where is the line? "AI" is completely arbitrary, might as well say a calculator is immoral because it offloads thinking. That my main issue with these people is that they think AI/LLMs are different than everything that came before them, yes they are more capable but all of computing has involved "offloading" effort/thought to computers. `
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox#Continuum_fall...
A continuum is not isomorphic to a single point.
Sorites doesn't actually refute the OP. The paradox is rooted in a failure to distinguish between aggregates and integral wholes. A heap is not really a natural kind or an integral whole. It is just a convenient label to describe a vague range of collections for practical purposes, but it is not what you a "thing" in its own right. There is no intrinsic tendency of a heap to be a heap, whereas in integral wholes there are. You cannot draw a line between a heap and a non-heap, because there is no such thing as a heap in any objective sense. There is no essential difference, only an accidental one.
Computers and computer programs are much more like heaps than integral wholes. There is no essential difference between what we conventionally call "AI" and any other computer program. The manner in which we have cordoned off "AI" from "non-AI" has more to do with human purposes and perspectives rather than any objective facts on the ground.
The difference between the Sorites paradox and the continuum fallacy is explained right there in the section on the continuum fallacy that I linked to.
I realize that's embedded within a larger page on the Sorites paradox instead of being given its own page, but I'm not super interested in being that preoccupied with Wikipedia's editorial decisions.
> "And offloading that labor, regardless of whether it's taxing or not, is undercutting my ability to be a moral actor."
The objection in the article is specifically about offloading thinking to technology, which is something we've been doing for decades, or depending on your definition, since we first started using tools.
If offloading cognitive labor is the core problem, then what makes AI fundamentally different from the countless other technological advances that have allowed us to offload cognitive labor?
We haven't been offloading thinking. We have been offloading the calculation. Someone had to think to implement a system in the past. The system abided by those constraints, or could be checked against them as it was deterministic (vast majority). AI is non-deterministic and presents a shift to where people are using it like a magic 8-ball to think for them, even if the mechanism is probablistic calculation of word patterns.
The difference between a calculator and an LLM is so obvious that its hard to believe this is a genuine question.
Do you honestly believe that LLMs are just the next incremental improvement on prior technology? It is such a fundamentally new paradigm.
By chopping out the first sentence of the quote, you lose the context of exactly what kind of labor he's talking about. Which is useful if you want to construct a strawman version of his argument by suggesting he might be morally opposed to four function calculators, too, but not so useful if the goal is to engage with the (presumably incomplete) version of his position that the article presents in good faith.
So let's look at that preceding sentence so that we can get a better sense of what kind of labor he was talking about:
> The process and work involved in thinking through situations, through my work, through my ethics, through the way I handle other people, is a key component in being able to develop myself as a moral person.
"thinking through situations", "my ethics", "the way I handle other people", "develop myself as a moral person". This doesn't read to me like he's taking a Butlerian Jihad-type position that humans have a moral responsibility to do their own arithmetic. We're clearly talking about higher-level, more abstract thinking and decision-making that might carry real moral weight.
And that brings us to a difference that I think he might be seeing but that you seemed to be claiming does not exist when you said, "My main issue with these people is that they think AI/LLMs are different than everything that came before them." GPT-style decoder LLMs are the first time we've ever really seen people trying to rely on computers to make abstract and open-ended decisions such as drawing up business plans, drafting memoranda, or doing deep research-type tasks on any sort of scale.
I think that you're probably aware that there is a a noticeable difference between how people are thinking about LLMs now versus how they did back when GPT 2.0 was the latest and greatest. The fact that we can construct a hypothetical continuum of possible models between GPT 2.0 and GPT 3.5 Turbo and suggest that, in this counterfactual scenario, it might not be possible to draw a hard line that cleanly separates the tech itself into two discrete categories, is fundamentally missing the point. His concern was never stated to be about the technology itself; it was about how he was being asked to use it.
Exactly. Recent LLMs are in a different category and it's disingenuous to pretend they're not. Wherever you decide to draw the line, GPT-3 and more advanced chatbots are clearly on the far side of it.
The average person was able to look at the devices up until now and see a tool. Now they see something they don't understand, but sure does seem smarter than they are, and has the aesthetics of being a person on the other side of the computer.
Do you think this guy has the technical depth to make these connections? He's working off what he can see, and he will likely grow old and die still lacking that understanding. So will a vast majority of users of these services.
What you are seeing is people realigning with a baseline of their reality. They have to trust what they are being told on this by someone, and they need to figure out who and how amid malicious actors that are trying to bend their beliefs.
> my main issue with these people is that they think
This reminds me of the torch lighters in a classic Frankenstein movie.
> all of computing has involved "offloading" effort/thought to computers.
Effort yes, thought no, not until recent years.
There isn't one. There's a story involving Socrates criticizing writing, arguing that it weakens memory, borrows wisdom, and is impossible to argue with interactively.
This specific circlejerk has blessed this industry a number of times already as well. People first became idiots thanks to higher level languages, then thanks to syntax highlighting, then thanks to IntelliSense.
It's a wretched trope that's been with us forever, and will probably never go away. The worst part is that it isn't even entirely meritless, just incomplete.
They did ban calculators in the Butlerian Jihad.
Yeah, and is this person going to turn down becoming a manager, ever, because they'll have to delegate the actual solution to someone else? Or are they going to micromanage them due to their ethical commitments?
Why? Do managers have to manage a bunch of AI agents? Or are you equating an LLM to a living breathing human?
Do you understand what the ethical objection the person who requested this exemption has?
I mean... this is exactly why I've avoided becoming a manager in the past. I will accept being responsible for my own work, but I don't want to be accountable for someone else's work.
Do you think it is unethical to be a manager?
No, but it's not a job for me. Someone has to do it, though, but I'd rather it not be me.
If you don't "want" to do something, that's not a religious or ethical exemption, that's just you not wanting to do something.
And by the same token, if my job turns around and requires me to do something I don't want to do, I would quit. Or try to get fired, if I was feeling spiteful.
I'm not arguing on this guy's behalf, I only made a comment.
I'm definitely resentful that I have to use AI to stay relevant, and wish it never came into existence, but religious exemptions shouldn't exist. If a law or rule isn't important enough for everyone to follow, it shouldn't be a rule or law.
I remember when in Iain M. Banks Culture Novels (I think it was _Consider Phlebas_), the heroine and its drone talk about the "Humanist" movement of a planet they visit incognito as a extremist anti-machine movement... (It is just in passing, the situation in the Culture novels is quite different from the Dune universe).
Can we please just look at LLMs like what they are and not some fantastical threat?
The fearmongering has cooked a lot of people's understanding of this stuff (and I wouldn't place the blame on them given the news they're likely consuming about AI).
"Play stupid games, win stupid prizes" is apt here. We don't need to return to mud huts and smoke signals because we can approximate intelligence.
I didn't get the impression that the man here was looking at LLMs as some fantastical threat. It seems like his concern was about offloading his thinking and decision making to AI, which seems pretty non-fantastical.
Can't that be done without a performative "religious exemption"? You don't need that to say "yeah, I'm not using this stuff." I imagine in practice all this will accomplish is pissing people off who are already stressed about AI.
I think I understand what you mean, but to me the exemption doesn't seem performative. It seems like the equivalent of him talking to his employer and having them agree to not force him to use tech he is concerned about, he just used a particular legal avenue to justify it as part of that discussion. It may be performative in the sense that it also got attention (e.g., in the form of this article), but in this case even that part of it seems like it could be a useful precedent for others who may be considering a similar route.
Then again, maybe even seeing it as _slightly_ performative, potentially, is overly pessimistic. It may seem performative simply because it's novel, but if he legitimately considers this part of his religious beliefs and his employer (seemingly) agrees, what is performative about exercising his rights like many other people of other religions do?
Because it turns this situation from "okay well, you're fired", to "okay, we don't want any trouble".
Possibly not. I would get fired if I said "yeah, I'm not using [AI]."
Right, but does a business/company owe you the right to never require usage of AI to do your job (and by extension, owe you that job under those terms)?
I did not take that position. You asked if US citizens could refuse AI without religious exemption, possibly suggesting the dramatics are unnecessary, and I answered that I could not.
Ah, disregard then.
Was he being forced or compelled to offload his thinking to a machine?
I probably don’t share his sentiments, but that’s no different from being compelled to think in certain mandated ways (offloading being just a particular case of it), which is certainly a bad idea. If that was the case, I find it weird that he used a religious exemption mechanism, but glad he can act and think freely, the way he desires.
However, he may not have a choice of tool use or peers, and be compelled to send work to, or process results done by a non-human system, if that’s a part of his organization system (external to him with regards to duties and responsibilities). To grant him an exemption would be to discriminate upon others, no different how he can’t refuse to work with, say, a Satanist. Or a cyborg transhumanist. If that’s the case and he just refuses to feed his thinking (his part of the job) to an AI (not his part of the job), then that’s him being a zealot pushing his religious views on others. In such a case, I can quite clearly see why he went for a religious exemption, huh.
His own part of the job, his responsibilities - yes, of course he can’t be compelled on how he does it. Anything outside of that - nope, his religious beliefs end there, not his thinking - not for him to say how to do it, or refuse to interact.
AI for me I just another balancing act. Lean too hard on it and it will be noticeable and detrimental, lean to hard away from it and you’ll be left behind by those who learn how to balance it.
Precursor to the machine crusade?
Butlerian Jihad when??
Its gonna turn into an anti-vaxxer thing when they realize vaccines could be created with generative AI. It will be in the pipeline
> “It has to be a deeply held ethical commitment that’s analogous to a religious commitment,” he said. “That’s a fact question that presumably the employer will investigate.”
I’m curious if the opposite would work:
“As a transhumanist my religion compels me to share everything with my machines, otherwise they can’t ensure my mind uploading is up to date “
I see no reason transhumanism is any less of a religion than humanism.
> I see no reason transhumanism is any less of a religion than humanism.
TBH I agree. Religious exemptions at large only exist for the big name religions but the arguments pushed often make claims about it being a moral/ethical precedent and its just not true. I think its a matter of PR and politics if you're able to get an exemption kind of same game as a lot of things.
There's also the bit about undue burden.
We see this with people who believe it is a religious requirement to share their faith at work, even when their co-workers say they don't want to hear it.
We see this with people who say their religious belief says they don't take orders from a women, even if that woman is their boss.
If your transhumanist religion compels you to share PII with your machines in a way which breaks the law, then there's likely an undue burden.
If it means you need access to a power plug during lunch so your devices can scan your brain for 10 minutes - almost certainly not an undue burden.
> If your transhumanist religion compels you to share PII with your machines in a way which breaks the law, then there's likely an undue burden.
Some modern recording laws are not made with a machine component in mind, even if that machine is a local first-party system and does not actually store anything long-term or propagate information any further. A cyborg-identifying person with a wearable speech processor may rightfully argue such laws are unfairly preventing their functioning, as they’re lacking an important distinction.
Right, but we're talking EEOC law.
The Civil Rights Act which created the EEOC does not require or permit an employer to break the law to accommodate a request, even if it is reasonable and with no burden.
Instead, the law must be challenged directly.
I wonder if you can object to using most AI on religious grounds as Claude, Grok, and ChatGPT are produced by and are made in the image of effectively pro-extinction death cults. Honestly, it makes me feel slimy and uneasy using them when I consider that they are basically cult manufactured artifacts designed to influence society according to their religious beliefs.
They are far less religious than people who believe in soul crap and infinite gods.
Whilst I’m in favour of the result, how is it possible for a humanist viewpoint to be classified as a religious belief?
Why not? Religious freedoms are about deeply held beliefs. It's not like a judge will evaluate the bible or quran to check if something is or isn't a religious freedom based on what someone's deity of choice supposedly stated.
Because it’s not religious. Under the lemon clause the government has to make a distinction between religious and secular beliefs.
Also, if humanism is being classified this way, why not transhumanism?
It is an interesting approach, but I would say his productivity is what matters.
I see you value productivity. Productivity to what purpose?
This is great
US courts stated that humanism is a form of religion... i bet that gets overturned pretty fast if this takes off.
Wait till the "where's the line" boosters learn groups like the Amish who have mostly drawn a line. They'll be clamoring for legal loopholes to steal the land from those luddites so that they can buid the future on it!
So what do you do if your company hires an engineer and on the first day they say "I am Amish and cannot touch a computer"? Give them a religions exemption? What then? Are you obligated to pay their salary for the rest of their life?
You're missing a major component of the law:
> Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for an applicant or employee whose sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance conflicts with a work requirement, *unless providing the accommodation would create an undue hardship for the employer.*
If using a computer is necessary for the job, then the religious exemption would create undue hardship. Presumably for this Kentucky guy's job he can get his work done without AI and the university isn't suffering for it.
So all a company has to do is say "AI is necessary for the job" and the exemption no longer applies. Then why are we even having this discussion?
How would you possibly prove that AI is necessary for a job when someone has been doing the job successfully for years before AI?
Sounds like a tough argument to make to me
Let's say your company makes holes. The year is 2026 so you use excavators because they are good at digging holes quickly. Would you hire a guy who refuses to use an excavator but will happily use a shovel?
My argument that you seem to have completely missed: If the guy with the shovel is already satisfying 100% of my hole digging needs, why would I spend the extra money for an excavator?
How would you possibly prove that AI is necessary for a job when someone has been doing the job successfully for years before AI?
Same for computers and engineering.
Computers were introduced to the workplace over the course of 50 years, not 4 years.
Computers were introduced overnight. One Monday the engineer went to work, and bang! There is a computer waiting for him, deal with it or go find another job. People at that time not joked around, were too busy building affordable houses, medicine, education, groceries and childcare. No way they would put up with some snowflakes who has some "beliefs" get in the way of creating all that societal goods.
Because if neither side budges, it goes to court to figure out what's reasonable, like with any other dispute. This is pretty basic stuff.
You filter out any such applicant with digital applications for digital postings requiring proficiency with digital tools.
Any such potential candidate passing these is then given an interview in which technical questions relevant to the question are asked.
I'm really not sure how you imagine a luddite makes it all the way to their first day to drop some weird "oh, I can't actually do this job btw" bomb.
Even supposing they do, they have a job description requiring that they perform certain tasks that are within the realm of reasonable expectations as set by the government.
Someone in a wheelchair isn't going to get hired for any "must be able to regularly lift and move weights over 50 pounds" job just because of equal employment opportunity as they can't perform the legally allowed requirements.
And what if someone decides to convert after starting the job?
They'd be found incapable of performing the tasks they agreed to perform in their contract.
You don't get to violate a contract just because you changed religions.
Read up on EEOC regulation and you'll see your example won't fly. Exceptions must be reasonable and not cause undue hardship on the employer.
"An accommodation may cause undue hardship if it is costly, compromises workplace safety, decreases workplace efficiency, infringes on the rights of other employees, or requires other employees to unwillingly do more than their share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work." - https://www.eeoc.gov/religious-discrimination
Otherwise we would all be joining a religion which require 360 days of religious festivities each year.
How would this person who hasn’t touched a computer for years, end up in the candidate pool for computer-using engineers?
Who says they haven't touched a computer for years? There's no requirement for your beliefs to be consistent. Otherwise there wouldn't be a single religious person left in the world. You can interview on a computer and reveal your religious preferences on the first day of the job.
> There's no requirement for your beliefs to be consistent
I would bet money a judge would argue that inconsistent/arbitrary beliefs are in fact not "sincerely held" beliefs as defined under Title VII.
Also, SCOTUS made a ruling in 2023 that a business is allowed to take "undue hardship" into consideration for the company as a whole, meaning they can still fire (or not hire) you if your beliefs would be detrimental to the success of the business.
The fact that all this stuff is easily accessible online and yet some people think they can just out-logic the law is mind-boggling to me. Oh, you never studied law in your life but you're criticizing a 60-year old law that has been hashed out over and over again? Dunning-Kruger strikes again.
Agreed... I feel like this is many people in general though (and esp. online forums/social media where people like to act smart); always with the armchair experts confidently stating uneducated guesses as dogma.
And the Dunning-Kruger effect also applies to "smart" people. You don't stop when you're estimating your ability correctly; as you learn more, you gain more awareness of your ignorance and continue being conservative with your self-estimates.
Yeah but you realize that religious exemptions aren’t just automatically rubber stamped? That employers can deny them on the basis of lack of sincerity? How realistic is it that someone can have a career with computers, and then on the first day of the job, prove that they’ve gone all-in on an anti-computer religion?
There are a lot of weird ways interviews are done. I wouldn't be surprised if someone's interview process didn't screen for is someone even an engineer.
Though nothing about the Amish prohibits being a computer using engineer. Their rejection of technology is a lot more nuanced.
Because he was hired when the company still used typewriters.
Great site
>Federal courts have ruled that humanism qualifies as a religion. As a result, she said, humanists have the same rights as other faith groups under federal law.
Hmmm, sounds a bit ripe for exploitation, no?
>In his interview with RNS, Durman said that being a humanist means being present and paying attention to others. Using AI conflicts with that.
Does this mean I can submit complaints against the companies I work for when I'm being told to respond via email or Slack? This seems pretty far removed from my humanist perspective up being present and paying attention to others, especially when you consider the various automations and abstractions which go into that kind of communication.
Like, I know it's obtuse, but I really don't see a logical issue with someone being a humanist and sincerely believing that communicating in anyway which isn't face-to-face goes against their beliefs. And that's just one example.
>“Substituting automated machine processing for human presence, authentic listening, and personal responsibility in my work directly conflicts with my obligation to uphold human dignity and flourishing as primary,” he wrote in a letter to the University of Kentucky’s Office of Equal Opportunity.
I'm sure this guy is being sincere and somewhat reasonable with his logic, but I know people who would feel justified in pushing this way past AI if they felt it was likely to get them anywhere. Like, how can you not use the same exact reasoning to push against using other forms of modern technology?
>The letter cited Durman’s personal beliefs as well as the 2003 version of the Humanist Manifesto, which details humanist principles and beliefs. Those beliefs include the importance of freedom of conscience and human flourishing.
Hell, at what point is being forced to work in order to survive in completely opposition to this belief system? When can I start saying that my employer's expectation that I'm in the office every day is in opposition to "human flourishing"?
>Durman told RNS his work involves helping researchers at the university with grant applications and that he can do the work without the help of AI. And not using AI won’t affect his co-workers, he said.
We'll see about that. Maybe, right now, this is the case. But even moderate expectation for AI usage in the future makes this suspect. When everyone is getting 90% of their work done completely autonomously through their agents, but they're still waiting on you to respond to an email from a day ago, then will this still be the case?
>For Durman, the accommodation process was much simpler. Durman sent the letter, and then he and Huiskens met with officials at the university. “It was a very collegial meeting, and they found that there was no undue burden to David’s department,” Huiskens said. “They granted the accommodation promptly.”
Well I'm unironically happy that they were able to work this out easily. But I really doubt this will be smooth sailing indefinitely, especially as other roles which are more affected by AI end up being "targeted" in the same ways.
As a software engineer, I dread the thought of working with co-workers who just refuse to use AI based on arbitrary principals. It's one thing for them to reason that they work better without AI; it's another thing to just say that you don't agree with using the technology and everyone needs to accommodate you.
Well I'm sure I haven't said anything that everyone else hasn't immediately thought/posted, but I'm genuinely curious about these things. It seems rather important that everyone is on the same page with regards to what their rights are with respect to choosing to not use a technology like this.
Also begs the question, if humanism counts, why not transhumanism?
Curious where the line lands in practice. Does the exemption cover AI baked into stuff he can't avoid, like spam filtering or the WAF in front of every request, or only tools he'd actively prompt?
Religion is a big joke until it can get you out of something. Then it’s sacred.
[flagged]
Snarky and lazy.
You can stand up to AI and claim it is against humanist beliefs, and you could also look for conflict-free CPUs for your computer and business[0]. Those are both actions a moral agent could take - why did he choose that action? I like humanism and am currently reading a book on it - but I think I have a very different interpretation than this professor or you.
[0]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/intel-says-its-processors-are-n...
Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. You're using technology too, and also breaking the site rules at the same time.
I read about the cobalt mines in college. I care. If it comes off as snarky, maybe you should have empathy for enslaved people in Africa instead of peons being replaced in first-world countries.
Is the man from the original article mentioned anywhere in the article you linked, or is that just whataboutism and speculation about the man in question and his beliefs?
Modernity has always been about abstraction and specialisation. If he's so humanist, he must also want to make his own food and his own car because after all, you are offloading your thinking to the underlying companies.
The problem is that you can get any kind of exemption based on religious beliefs.
You actually cannot. There are standards to meet to qualify as a true religious exemption. There have been many court cases where people tried to claim religious beliefs when convenient for them, which were denied because they couldn’t meet the threshold for being a real religious belief.
There are also limitations on what accommodations can be requested. If you took a job mowing lawns and then had a religious belief against harming living plants, you wouldn’t collect paychecks while you watched your coworkers mow lawns. They would have to find other work for you if they could, like raking leaves or lawnmower maintenance. If they didn’t have that work, then you wouldn’t have a job.
The raking leaves example was to make a point. For a programming job you could be exempted from using AI tools to do the work, but you would still have to do the work at a reasonable standard.
I didn't make myself clear. I'm against the concept of asking for exception from something based on your religious beliefs. I didn't mean that you can ask for virtually anything.
> For a programming job you could be exempted from using AI tools to do the work, but you would still have to do the work at a reasonable standard.
Plenty of programmers don't work at a reasonable standard; See, for example, every security incident ever, proliferation of slow electron apps, commercial software that flat-out doesn't work properly.
I’m glad you’ve never written any bugs into your software. If only we could all be that perfect.
However the standard for performance is relative to reasonable expectations for someone in that role. Typically relative to peers within the company. If one person is unable to do their job to within a reasonable level relative their peers even with reasonable accommodations, accommodations do not require the company to continue employing them anyway.
That might not be reasonable to you, but that's completely different from the reasonable standard under the law.
This is not true. The accommodation is only possible if it doesn't present undue hardship, safety concerns, etc. Plenty of accommodations can be denied on those grounds.
Yes, in most cases a religious exemption requires approval after a formal review regardless of the reason or its merits.
Please provide some evidence for your claim. There are plenty of cases out there to show the opposite of what you claim.
https://wp.nyu.edu/compliance_enforcement/2026/01/21/ninth-c...
You could answer that yourself. To qualify this first ask what are the criteria for a person to establish a valid religious exemption request and then what are the criteria for a regulating body or employer to deny the exemption according to that criteria.
Here is a brief example from the American Bar Association: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/resources/human-righ...
Also, some institutions have much wider latitude to deny a variety of religious exemption requests than other due to environmental hazards and safety concerns.
This is the opposite of what your prior comment said. Your prior comment says that exemption requests require approval regardless of the merits.
Which is better than getting no exceptions - if only the two extremes are available.
I disagree. At the moment religious exemptions are almost always granted only to the majority religions, or at least views that the majority religions find acceptable. If you started applying the law fairly the whole thing would immediately fall apart.
That’s not true at all. Many of the most famous religious accommodations in the US are things that mainstream Christians find illogical/absurd:
- Sikhs keeping long hair/beard in the military or police
- Quakers being exempt from the draft
- Quakers, again, refusing to drive with NH plates that say “live free or die,” because they don’t believe that
- Muslims needing breaks to pray 5x/day
- Jews requiring food that follows extremely complex kosher preparation rules
- Native Americans using peyote, a hallucinogen
- Jehovah’s Witnesses and others refusing to swear oaths, even in court
Of course many of these had to be fought for in court, but courts are very amenable to the earnestly held beliefs of minority religious groups in the US. We don’t have a state religion.
There are, however, constraints on these accomodations driven by job and safety requirements -- see for instance https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2011-...:
"... there are circumstances where a tight-fitting respirator must be worn, such as when a worker is exposed to an atmosphere that is immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH), defined as "...an atmosphere that poses an immediate threat to life, would cause irreversible adverse health effects, or would impair an individual's ability to escape from a dangerous atmosphere." 29 CFR 1910.134(b). In these situations, a tight-fitting pressure demand respirator is required. Wearing a respirator that is less protective could pose a grave danger not only to the worker who is wearing it, but also to other workers who might be called on to rescue him from the IDLH atmosphere. Preventing these unnecessary risks is a compelling governmental interest that justifies OSHA's decision not to provide a religious exemption from the respirator standard, especially as there is no less restrictive way to provide this protection."
Which is funny because people who actually work with this tech know well that facial hair is no obstacle to rigorously functional respirator use. This is more of a cultural tradition such as how genital mutilation of infant boys is necessary for health when it really took off as a way of adding value to birth support service invoices.
Wow, talk about a change of subject.
Sikhs (Khalsa) are also technically obliged to carry a knife around at all times.
Can you provide an example? The undue burden, safety issues, etc tend to strike down most requests that are unusual.
[dead]
How is this a problem? And what would you propose to do about the negative symptoms of the “problem”.
> How is this a problem?
It creates inequality. For some reason we accept that following a morality framework based on a bunch of presuppositions puts you in a special box (well, I don't accept it). Like, why am I forced to be sent to a meat grinder and kill people? Just because I'm not ultra orthodox something?
This is just a consequence of the philosophically liberal metaphysics, anthropology, and resulting moral views and political orders they produce. Once you accept those premises, they act as a corrosive agent that can be deployed to dissolve all sorts of truths opposed to someone's conception of "autonomy" and "freedom" and you really have no defense as long as your thinking is subject to them. It's why the Right has consistently lost all sorts of cultural battles. They, too, are liberals - because we're all liberals, culturally - and as long as they remain so, their "reactionary" behavior will largely remain rooted in mere sentimental attachment to an imagined past rather than something intellectually substantive. Hence, why what falls under the label of "postliberalism" has a much stronger shot. It is an intellectual rejection of liberalism with intellectual substance that often draws on robust metaphysical and anthropological "alternatives" to liberalism, as it were.
Prove your god exists, otherwise stop making up nonsense based on nonsense.
Sorry you can define criteria how to find a better understanding of the world. E.g. Popper did it (as he asked the innocent question if one is aloud to disprove your theory)
It pisses lots of people including Marxist, Nazis, Gender Study Theorists, Catholics, as all of them believe stuff which they dont like to disapprove.
Your statement smells like Catholic rhetoric so I am happy to announce the truth is there is no god. Jesus was not his son and he was certainly not reborn. Just some folks who invented this story 1950 years ago.
Your last paragraph is out of order and sounds like the kind of dig that made Usenet and so many early-millennium web forums so tiresome. Catholics amount to a minority of people making up postliberal trends, and many of those who are Catholics spend a lot of their time arguing not quite from "Jesus who was invented 1950 years ago" but from Aristotelian concepts that became a popular intellectual framework within Western Christianity. I say all this as someone who is neither Catholic, nor would call himself postliberal.
This zamowski fellow should have no difficulty saying if he believes in any religion.
Just chiming in: I upvoted both the post you replied to and the post it was replying to. All of yours got the thumbs down. No one appointed you the order police and this entire train was net-negative.
"[...] so tiresome. " I only wrote very basic Atheist concepts. If that is tiresome to you, I dont know, what else.
" Catholics amount to a minority of people making up postliberal trends, " I cited a bigger group of people who have a problem with the liberal Popper. You can call Marxist classical postliberalism.
" e Catholics spend a lot of their time arguing not quite from "Jesus who was invented 1950 years ago" but from Aristotelian concepts " I doubt it. Most catholics I've met dont do it. Sorry. And I doubt that most Catholics do any deep philosophical statement at all. You can ask them how I could disapprove their belief. You wouldnt get an answer, sometimes a very angry reaction.
No, your post wasn't "basic atheism" (a basic atheist probably wouldn't write anything there at all) but New Atheism, which was such a web community-spoiling scene and thankfully peaked and declined nearly two decades ago though you apparently didn't go the memo.
Most Catholics you have met are immaterial, because the OP distinctly mentioned postliberalism. If you want to bring up Catholics here, then the Catholics who would bother to identify with postliberalism, which is after all a stance of political philosophy, are largely those Catholics of a philosophical bent, and that is why one hears a lot of Aristotle in defense of their political and social models. I have my own disagreements with Catholics because I am not sympathetic to many claims of Aristotelianism, but on HN facts matter.
" our post wasn't "basic atheism" (a basic atheist probably wouldn't write anything there at all) but New Atheism, which was such a web community-spoiling scene and thankfully peaked and declined nearly two decades ago though you apparently didn't go the memo. " You mean people like Kazimierz Łyszczyński (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazimierz_%C5%81yszczy%C5%84sk... ) or the growing atheism in the Arab world ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oy3JuwGJWBE ) ? I didnt get the memo? In my country Catholism is losing constantly people and English use net was not a thing back then.
" Most Catholics you have met are immaterial " Most Catholics just suck what they learned during child hood. They are postliberal as they wish a Catholic society which is hence not liberal. Arguing with Aristoteles is just plain sane washing as the bible is intellectuelly very thin.
Some might say this is a feature not a bug of religious freedom
“Why I Am Not Going to Use It” an AI-drafted homage to Wendall Berry and his piece "Why I Am Not Going To Buy A Computer"
https://substack.com/home/post/p-213929165
This is so good. Here's one stand-out line (of many) to me:
> And as for whether it replaces or disrupts anything good that already exists, I will only say that I have watched it, in a very short time, begin to replace the patient work of learning, the slow formation of judgment, the friendship of teacher and student, the labor by which a writer finds out what she thinks. These are things that, once lost, are not quickly recovered.
In the Berry style, I can say that I don't need to use AI because my wife can do all the statistical inference I need.
The irony.
RIP Berry
“Old man yells at cloud”
It’s actually strange that he rejects AI, considering how much this tool speeds things up and helps with so many tasks.
AI that pretends to be a human mind, or takes the place of a human mind is an abomination. [what does that mean? that's the whole ballgame. defining what this means]
AI as a tool can do impressive things.
AI usage metrics by employers is ... an interesting test case.
The ironic part is that this same guy undoubtedly relies on the expertise of millions of human agents and sees absolutely nothing wrong with that.
He is a humanist, how could relying on humans possibly go against his beliefs?
The word "relying" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. The point I'm making is that "relying" on human experts, as opposed to AI experts, is the same thing: you're giving up your autonomy for the illusion of productivity, and in the process courting disaster. To put it another way: Every single one of you who downvoted me has clearly never read Frank Herbert's Dune. Machine-think is not limited to machines.
Where's the irony? Everything the article reports about Durman's opinions would seem to suggest that millions of humans mutually supporting each other is exactly the kind of thing that he wants to see happening.
“Expertise of millions of human agents” …in what? Understanding the universe that’s around us? In the cosmic sense, we humans have not done anything at all, aside from trying to understand it and “chimping out” from time to time.
It’s just that our human-centric bias is showing. We are not the main characters of this universe. Not by a long shot. Heck, in the planetary sense, we feel like earth belongs to us, but chances are we will not be in the top 1,000,0000th of its inhabitants as species by the amount of time spent living on it when life inevitably ceases to exist on it at some point in the future.
We monkeys are sure dumb and self-centered.
Every A.I. related post here has someone saying "I for one see no difference between a human being and an A.I." but this may be the first time I've seen this cliche extended to "How bizarre to meet a human being that thinks humans are not identical to A.I."
It really highlights how misanthropic many AI booster people are. I find it really discouraging to see.
Also shows how Anthropic's name is really a misnomer. :)
Its just starting with baseline common sense that souls and gods are unproven nonsense and the human brain is a purely physical system.
You don't have to believe in souls and gods to think humans have qualities that cannot be encoded in silicon
Both are turing computers, whether you like it or not, its completely possible.
That doesn’t seem ironic at all. Irony is merely the condition where appearance and reality differ. In this case, if he values his own thinking he presumably values the thinking of other persons.
If someone told me this was a Sam Altman quote, I'd believe them.
>human agents
What? Are you trying to say "people"?
I'm sure he drives stick as well because offloading cognitive function to an ECU changing gears for him would also be against his religious beliefs.
This kind of automation takes the execution away from you, not the decision, and even that execution only concerns you. You wanted to shift into a higher gear, the car's computer does it for you. The result is what you wanted. A fully autonomous car that decides everything for you would be a better example.
If you let an AI grade an exam then a big part of what comes next is a decision that you didn't take or validate. You didn't remove yourself just from the execution, you removed yourself from the responsibility and cognitive effort to take the decision, and from the accountability for that decision.
If you can simplify and call every button press "just the computer doing things", then someone else can exaggerate and say a fully autonomous drone hunting humans is the same, business as usual, computers doing things.
theory: there are two groups that a lot of hackernews commenters fall into. And these two groups clash on every Ai post every day. One camp only uses Ai to write code and thinks of them strictly as LLMs with a clearly understood design and purpose but that show some surprising behavior, they've watched youtube videos that show how everything ties together computationally and mathematically, from neural nets to RL, etc. and dont see them as capital A, Ai. It's another tool in the toolbox, and thinking about them in the way you describe, as something closer to capital Ai would cause severe cognitive dissonance, akin to the idea that a hammer could hop out of the toolbox and start building a house. Even though what you've done is just take one small step of critical thinking, it would be a leap to the other camp members, who are themselves, quite technical thinkers.
Outside of America, most people drive cars with a manual gearbox.
This is only still true because in the parts of the world with the most population, cost is the #1 deciding factor in vehicle purchasing. Manuals are cheaper. Globally the industry is trending against manuals over time.
Also in large parts of Europe if you pass your driving test in an automatic car you _can't_ drive a manual, so it becomes the default out of convenience.
Not true. Even for a lower middle income country like mine, cars with manual gearboxes had become very rare (with the exception of cabs where they remain the norm).
According to Gemini, 35% to 40% of vehicles in the world today are manual transmission. While not most, it's higher than I realized.
Possibly out of date statistics including farm machinery and motorbikes sold to Africa. In Southeast Asia, I've noticed that cities are mostly now all automatic scooters but in country areas many people still prefer manual. Manual is more intuitive for tackling hard topography and very bad roads.
Outside of the United States? Even then, I don't think this has been a true statement for at least a decade, if not more with the rise of EVs in places other than the USA.
I don't think I've seen a manual gearbox in Canada in decades.
And how is that relevant here?
Because it shows that there are a large number of people who do not want to offload a basic task, people for whom an insignificant convenience is not worth a significant outlay of money.
I think if you mapped smart home technology to transmission preference, those who op for manual transmissions probably also opt for oldschool switches and thermostats .
[dead]
that's me
[flagged]
HN posters: try not to deploy a slur challenge: impossible
I agree with the principle that if it meaningfully impinges on your core ideals that you shouldn't be required to do that.
On the other hand, it seems like this particular ideal is being supported because of an underlying public sentiment. Not because the ideal itself is held.
I think if you are going to fully support variances in beliefs like this then it should be done on an equal standing.
That includes principles about proprietary software, abusive software, the belief that information cannot have ownership, advertising is inherently immorral.
There are a lot more principles, it is clear that some people have these at a level where they consider it a core part of their being,
Why shouldn't they also be supported. Should companies be required to offer open source solutions for employees in the same manner as this case is suggesting for non-AI?
While I don't want to complain about the downvotes, it does present me with some confusion. What part of my post is being disagreed with here?
Do people disagree that beliefs should be accommodated? Do they disagree that they should be treated equally? I didn't say where to draw the line, I just observed that one existed.