Business doesn’t hate creatives, and is not specifically targeting creatives to automate them away. Any job that can be done as good for a lower price or better for the same price is going to be a target.
Let’s follow the AI and automation craze to its eventual conclusion - automations everywhere, humans are either employed in automation industry, or are unemployed at a massive scale.
Stable jobs are replaced by ever-optimized gig economy for some, and chronic poverty for others. For there to even be economy - the massive underemployed population subsists on government welfare.
Cynic in me thinks that all of the wealth generated by enormous productivity gains resulting from automation will not find its way towards population displaced by it. Those cashiers, toll booth, and warehouse workers did not find themselves in much more lucrative careers - I don’t see why it will be any different for truck and cab drivers who will be joining them in the near future.
If you see a future where these people who suddenly found all this extra leisure time o. Their hands and no income - are somehow blossoming in creative directions and realizing their own potential - I’d like to have it painted for me, as it all looks pretty bleak to me. Just not quiet sure of the timeline.
Best I can come up with is an emergence of some kind of counter-cultural protest market where people buy and sell “made by humans” products, and are continuously attacked by various regulations originating from mega corporations who captured the government.
> Cynic in me thinks that all of the wealth generated by enormous productivity gains resulting from automation will not find its way towards population displaced by it.
Empirically, that's not true.
Unemployment was at an all-time low after most of those jobs were eliminated, and wages after adjusting for inflation continued to rise in real terms.
I am inclined to doubt the sources of these empirical observations. Statistics are funny like that, “average patient temperature in the hospital” effect and frequent inability to correctly attribute confounding factors outside of observed window.
Equally bad is anecdotal evidence, but I’ll drop some anyway. For a while now I am observing a crisis thats, admittedly subjectively, easy to see - but is somehow absent in those empirical sources citing economic accomplishments. An indirect evidence of what I am talking about - is crushing defeat of democrats/establishment in last election, following among other reasons, quite a backlash for boasting about said accomplishments.
But rather than picking issue with one of my points - I still would like someone to describe the counterpoint to my dystopian expectations - where, for example, would all those professional drivers I mentioned earlier go?
Ps. Oh speaking of statistics - remember Greenspan’s “there’s no real estate bubble, there’s froth in individual markets” right before 2008 financial crisis? It be funny like that, sometimes much derided common sense is all you need /shrug.
> where, for example, would all those professional drivers I mentioned earlier go?
Wherever all the cashiers, toll booth operators, and farmers went after automation took their jobs.
New jobs are created, the people displaced have to migrate to them.
Is it fun for them? No.
Is it how the world works? Yes.
Technology thus far has a VERY VERY long and established role of creating more jobs than it eliminates.
See >95% of the population being employed in agriculture for tens of thousands of years and being reduced to about 5% over the course of 100 years (and civilization being FAR FAR better off for it).
Will that trend one day end? Probably.
Will it be doomsday for the plebs? Who knows.
Is it happening within a timeframe worth worrying about? Unlikely.
That's right, they don't just hate creatives. They'll go after anyone.
I wonder what the hyper-capitalist's end game looks like. One giant company that covers everything with one man sitting at a dashboard, tweaking parameters? Is that one man even necessary?
I wonder what our plans are for when "the economy" prefers to do it's thing without us. Writing poems all day? What capitalist instrument will provide "money" for us to spend in this giant machine?
I don't think its at all extremist to look at that picture, realize it won't really have made any sense for the majority of the people on the planet well before it gets to that point, and that consequently some type of major global revolution will prevent that from happening.
Yes, this has always been the case. This is why capital holders are actively hostile to labor organizing and tend to back fascism when liberalism falls into crisis.
They don't hate at all. They are just maximising profit (which they have an obligation to do). If they didn't replace you with more efficient things, they would be outcompeted and die.
So, feel free to criticise capitalism and how inhumane it is, but don't anthropomorphise it by ascribing human emotions to the system.
I was a psych major in undergrad, and did an experiment as a riff on stereotype threat and got a small effect. I had the participants solve brain teaser puzzles and the only difference was introducing them as coming from 11th grade or graduate level math. Undergrads did worse when they thought it was graduate level.
This is the most maddening thing about all content now. It's all platform based and every platform wants to constantly push/"recommend" things to you and your kids. Right now I use Roku and Plex but even both of those are constantly trying to break down the wall.
Personality is ~70% determined by genetics, not life experience.[0]
I’m surprised that someone interested enough in the topic to write such a long post wouldn’t put the time in to do a cursory dive into personality psychology. I’m going to assume that the author has a similar definition of personality to mainstream psychology, but if so, they are ignoring accepted studies and evidence that make it pretty clear that personality is not learned through conditioning like AI.
There's no practical point in separating genetics from life experience, as they go hand in hand together.
Someone who has the genetics to be physically attractive/beautiful will have a completely different set of experiences than someone who isn't. Same goes for intelligence.
Also, the source you linked only pertains to IQ (which itself is not a perfect measure of intelligence), and IQ is not personality (although I have met some folks who do treat their IQ as a substitute for such).
The analysis of the data revealed no significant difference between MZA twins (reared apart) and MZT twins (reared together) in regards to personality measures such as temperament, hobbies, interests, career pursuits or social attitudes.
This is noted and considered out of scope:
>Obviously some traits are more genetic, and thus inherent, than others, but that is not the scope of this post as even highly-heritable traits will result in a large distribution of outcomes.
Sure, and they even go on to say that the article is about “what helps to explain the differences in outcome between two genetically identical people.” However it’s clear that is not actually what the article is about and they do talk about traits that are highly heritable and not shown to be dependent on environment and life experience.
It reminds me of the expression "locks are to keep honest people out," in that code which runs on a device you control is code that you control: https://github.com/shroudedcode/apk-mitm#readme
> They typically borrow the form and structure of an in-person conference without considering whether those still make sense online, and whether the goals of an online conference should even be the same as an in-person conference.
Been having a similar debate with a client about their (remote) company all hands. If it’s just going to be a few execs talking at the camera, it shouldn’t be a live group video call.
A remote all hands should have the form of a twitch live streamer. The ceo in his pyamas on a desk with old coffee mugs reacting to content from their own intranet, chat flying by, tts. I'd watch that.
That's the proven format for a one-to-many conversation on this medium.
His underlings prepared some slides, he reacts to them blindly, live fact checking of chat questions.
All hands should be followed by Q&A, rare opportunity to have execs together so the right one can answer. And it makes sense to listen live to know what (not) to ask.
That's why they said "will become". It just takes longer for some than others, but at some size / leadership personalities it'll the company flip the approach. For some it may start already like this, for some takes thousands of employees to change the vibe, and most will just go bankrupt as usual.
Unless there's a need to interact (and there rarely is at an all-hands), it would save everyone time to just prerecord it. Any followup questions can be sent via email with reply-to-all (or an internal mailing list).
I couldn't care less about seeing and feeling my ceo, I just want to do my work and get paid with as little pointless interruptions as possible. Though this could be different if I worked for something I really cared about.
How large is the company you work for? In mine, I can't imagine wanting to "feel the leaders I work for and with" - the very idea of working with them feels like jumping 5 steps up and 2 steps sideways in the corporate org chart.
It was different before acquisition, back when the 90% of the company fit on one floor of an office building, and the CEO was someone you passed by regularly, and who contributed actual engineering. But company this kind and size, they don't do "all-hands" and "town squares" videocalls...
Yes, a lot gets lost in an email vs. video. I'm not saying it has to be a live meeting, but videos of execs talking about strategy often make their ideas much clearer than a written text.
And live has the big advantage that it cannot be re-recorded, so it's more natural and not as rehearsed as a recorded video.
If a strategy is clearer orally than on paper, something is very wrong. Either you're getting bamboozled by charisma and a bad plan is getting a fake dress up OR they don't know how to write.
…or some people just prefer visual interactions to text only formats.
This is very true in my case because I’m dyslexic so I ingest context more easily when heard vs when read.
For other people, it might just be a personal preference. Just like you have the personal preference to read rather than watch.
Arguing that the GP has some major character flaw because of their own personal preference really says more about your own character than it does theirs.
Also it's not personal preference. If you're an executive you need to know how to write properly. Execs rely on oral communication to use their charisma points on you, when you read the plans many times they have nothing to do with what was said or it's much simpler. Same with politicians.
A good all hands meeting is about much more than just outlining company strategy.
It’s about uniting everyone emotionally as well as academically.
The emotional component is an absolutely a critical part.
And this is one of the tells for a company that cares about staff moral verses those that don’t. One that care make their all hands about the employees too.
It's not about interactions. Sure, some people prefer or respond better to talk than to reading, or video, etc. But if the execs can't articulate their plan in writing, and can only explain it over words, it's a good indication they don't understand it themselves and it's probably nonsense - for the same reason your exciting, beautiful solution to a programming problem falls apart when you're three lines into writing it down.
Turns out, people have only so much working memory, but are good at covering for it with emotions.
Sure. But when all hands meetings are done well then they aren’t just about communicating company strategy. They’re about the employees too.
You’ll see demos from colleagues in different departments who you might not normally work with. And individuals praised for specific wins.
A good all hands should be for the staff, not for the execs. And that’s the harder skill execs need to learn: when to stfu and let their staff have screen time.
If all hands is done well, it brings the business closer and motivates employees in ways that an email couldn’t. However this is lost on most execs and so all hands often ends up being an ego trip for themselves, and when that happens the thats when things need to be communicated via email.
I'm not opposed to video, but if stuff gets lost in the written version that's more a statement on poor exec written communication skills than video being better than text.
People ingest info differently, and being able to communicate the same info in multiple ways should be table stakes at that level.
The video just gives execs more leverage to use the skills they use every day (people skills) to overwhelm the skills you use every day (charitably either the same skills or some sort of knowledge or physical skill). The more they're comfortable, the worse off you are. Their entire position within the company hinges on being able to exploit you for as much as you're willing to let them get away with, which hinges upon how well they're able to convince you you're worth less than they are (after all, you earn less).
Giving them anything is the wrong move. If you think you are getting as much out of the video as they are getting out of you watching them speak, you are wrong. The degree of wrong depends on your affinity with their chosen craft (which is, to be clear, grifting you).
>Have you ever attended an all hands that couldn’t have been an email?
Yes, they are the ones that happen once or twice a year, not the ones that happen weekly or monthly though, and they covered topics that have a broader scope than what I'm personally working on at any given time.
Tell me you don't manage a lot of people without telling me you don't manage a lot of people.
In some roles you have to over-communicate. All people -- me included-- over estimate how carefully they pay attention to communication. So people will say you could have just sent me an email in good faith and sincerity and the reality is that would not have gotten the point across, the discussion started, or coordination happening.
I just got an axidraw and I’ve been having a lot of fun with it. Because it can just use SVGs as is, I could plot a “still”[0] from one of my existing generative pieces[1] minutes after bringing it home.
What surprised me is how good some plots look and how “cheap” others come out. I’ve made a few that were fun to watch but the output isn’t nicer than a laser printer.
My current thinking is the more “exotic” the pen and paper is, the better.
The Uni-Ball Signo metallic gel pens have performed pretty well, but can drip on the corner when the piece is done and the arm returns to origin, so you'll want to pay attention to it:
I know, I just didn't bother to do it for that piece since I actually wanted to film the jumping around of the arm as a demo for friends. I do it for other pieces I actually want to optimize using vpype.
Thanks! Was surprisingly hard to find something that looked good on Amazon. I'm thinking it has to be matte for the full effect. Probably worth checking out an art supply store.
Probably. Its definitely worth investing in good paper and pens for this hobby. There will be some experimentation tax built in too, I've bought pens that ended up being garbage but there's no way to know that until you try.
same conclusions from me, lean into what makes the tool different than a regular printer, lean into it's imperfection ( improper inkflow, misregistration if using more than one color/pass, ink bleed, how it reacts to a semi-rough surface ). It is also a very performative tool, I've seen some artists using them in that way as well. Using both cartesian and polar style hanging plotters on gallery wall or glass window. Also hanging polar style plotters as a very cost effective way to create very large works.
I hesitate to recommend this because of how woo woo it sounds, but... I had terrible pulsatile tinnitus (both sides) for over a year and half. I went to doctors, specialists, tried steroids, the works. I had to sleep with headphones to drown it out. Eventually my wife suggested I try craniosacral therapy. After the first session it started to get a lot quieter and even would "stutter" out for short periods of time. After the second session it disappeared and hasn't been back. The practitioner came from https://milneinstitute.com/what-is-vcsw/
Actually that's a good idea... My parents are literally ENT doctors so one thing they told me to try was simple neck massages/movements. Basically cradle the back of neck with your fingers, then slowly tilt head up and down. It improves blood flow, releases muscle tension, etc., and there's a chance this or the CST that you mention can help with some forms of tinnitus. Now that you've reminded me, I'll keep trying it, thanks!
I built https://upfollow.app to help a product manager have a better relationship with the software engineers. It makes it easy to create calendar reminders to follow up on features and other requests that she is waiting on. This provides a little structure, allows delivery estimates to change, limits interruption/nagging, and still catches rabbit holes or distractions before they can prevent features getting put in front of users.
Want more money? Use this to figure out what the company and manager would want in exchange so you can work towards it.
Want more visibility for promotions? Use it to figure out the highest visibility projects and get assigned to those
Want to work on newer/different technologies? Use it to figure out where those could best fit in or get reassigned if they are already in use.