No, it actually makes sense if a few of the employees were previous unemployed.

From the summary, it's clear that the people who used AI saw a great increase in productivity. That these people then chose to spend more time on work because of this is likely because the increased productivity excited them.

So basically, I don't see a problem here. AI working as promised and people being overly enthusiastic is quite a reasonable outcome. I've yet to read the full article, so there might be more there, but far as I'm concerned, that's quite an optimistic outcome.

doctors and physiologists have given up. "Just do the bare minimum. It's better than doing nothing."

The only problem I currently have is that I no longer think that a longer lifespan is beneficial. I have no will to live through WW3 or any other global or local upheaval or pandemic or whatnot. When growing up the future looked good. Then in the 90s people started imagining the future as dystopian. I disliked that notion, but recent years led me to think it's where we're going.

So I don't currently see extending my lifespan as something that's worth the effort.

I think you're misrepresenting the issue here. None of those Korean grunt workers will ever get to do more advanced creative work in Japan.

Unfortunately the original article is beyond a paywall, so I don't know if it's mentioned there, but I'd guess that "everyone" means "about 5% of the population".

"Linux celeb Lennart Poettering has left Microsoft and co-founded a new company... It is unclear why Poettering decided to leave Microsoft. We asked the company to comment but have not received a response."

The writer might have early onset of dementia, or perhaps early onset of AI syndrom.

Lot of people implying that hardware requirements would prevent people from switching. This might have been true for some, but apparently for many users it wasn't (which made sense; the TPM requirement is for very old PCs). So "ending" support for Windows 10 did what Microsoft wanted, moved users to Windows 11.

By the way, I just recently tried to update an old Windows 10 PC (of a family member), and Windows Update simply offered me to extend the support by a year.

People are largely idiots. They spend their time consuming media and trying to do selfish things for their enjoyment, while serving as wage slaves to corporations, where most of them do nothing of actual importance. AI hallucinations are nothing compared to humans' stupid beliefs. Even academia is filled with bad research and some outright fraud.

So it's not clear to me what is this "human level intelligence" that people want AI to aspire to.

The Trump administration has been pushing Canada away from US brands, so it's a question whether Tesla will have that much success.

It's a pity that the US is pushing the rest of the world into the arms of China, but it's hard at this point to tell which authoritarian regime will end up worse for the rest of us.

I think it's important to consider how AI will affect the job market, but I certainly don't expect anyone in the US, an ultra capitalistic country, to provide a solution for this problem, or even thing about it in reasonable terms.

There can't be a quick solution to this, because we don't fully know what AI will replace and what other jobs will be created by it. It's also clear to me that we will need to address job loss of older employees different from young ones. We might want government support while the transition to AI is taking place. The pace of change is too fast for that to work well without it. Again, I'd expect nothing from the US on that front.

Pivoting development to address a temporary shortage isn't necessarily good business strategy.

Someone told me that the best thing is to assume that in a couple of years when the AI bubble bursts will have a deluge of RAM and GPUs with lots of RAM, and it would be best to design for that.

I think that's too optimistic, but seriously, investing into optimisation as a response to a market shortage doesn't sound to me like the best use of development time unless it's simple to do. If it's simple to do, it would often already be done.

I think that there are better ways to waste time than rewinding cassettes. I mean, really, if a person is advocating low audio quality media that can easily break and wastes time, that person has issues. Trying to claim that this is a lifestyle and somehow offering this as a good thing?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Of course when prices go up people buy less. They can't afford to buy as much as before.

The rest of your post is just a spin. You're trying to claim that "they don't need it". Yes, they can make do with 2 pencils instead of 35, but that's just saying you're in a recession, and people can't afford to live at the same level as before.

I think it's a viable way of "coding", but if the result doesn't compile ("imaginary APIs") or doesn't fit the requested style, then it shouldn't be submitted.

I certainly let AI code things for me for research or as utilities, without attempting to fully understand the code. I ensure it does what I want and often try to get the opinion of more than one AI. It's a nice tool for getting stuff done that's not my main work. But submitting such code would require at least a code review and ensuring it works. At least where I work, doing a code review doesn't mean that you fully understand what the other person did. We have different expertise. It's does help find problems with both code and documentation. I think it's reasonable to apply this to AI-generated code (although it's probably best to assume that it's an error-prone developer).