←back to thread

388 points pseudolus | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.467s | source
Show context
Bukhmanizer ◴[] No.43485838[source]
I’m surprised not many people talk about this, but a big reason corporations are able to do layoffs is just that they’re doing less. At my work we used to have thousands of ideas of small improvements to make things better for our users. Now we have one: AI. It’s not that we’re using AI to make all these small improvements, or even planning on it. We’re just… not doing them. And I don’t think my experience is very unique.
replies(21): >>43486104 #>>43486264 #>>43486456 #>>43487649 #>>43487671 #>>43488414 #>>43488436 #>>43488988 #>>43489201 #>>43489228 #>>43489488 #>>43489997 #>>43490451 #>>43490843 #>>43491273 #>>43491336 #>>43491568 #>>43491660 #>>43492193 #>>43492499 #>>43493656 #
baazaa ◴[] No.43488436[source]
I think people need to get used to the idea that the West is just going backwards in capability. Go watch CGI in a movie theatre and it's worse than 20 years ago, go home to play video games and the new releases are all remasters of 20 year old games because no-one knows how to do anything any more. And these are industries which should be seeing the most progress, things are even worse in hard-tech at Boeing or whatever.

Whenever people see old systems still in production (say things that are over 30 years old) the assumption is that management refused to fund the replacement. But if you look at replacement projects so many of them are such dismal failures that's management's reluctance to engage in fixing stuff is understandable.

From the outside, decline always looks like a choice, because the exact form the decline takes was chosen. The issue is that all the choices are bad.

replies(33): >>43488541 #>>43488644 #>>43488809 #>>43488874 #>>43488894 #>>43488954 #>>43489176 #>>43489496 #>>43489529 #>>43489552 #>>43489570 #>>43489702 #>>43490076 #>>43490205 #>>43490296 #>>43491212 #>>43491465 #>>43491538 #>>43491547 #>>43491626 #>>43491950 #>>43492095 #>>43492352 #>>43492362 #>>43492581 #>>43492773 #>>43492829 #>>43492886 #>>43493251 #>>43493711 #>>43495038 #>>43495649 #>>43495778 #
pimlottc ◴[] No.43489552[source]
In many cases, quality is being driven down by automation that’s drastically cheaper and produces results that are deemed “good enough”.

Some of this is inevitable as new products and services move from being high end to mass-market, and it’s perhaps a bit chicken-and-egg to determine whether we accept this because we most people never really cared about quality that much anyway or because we just learn to accept what we’re given.

But it feels like there could be a world where automation still reduces costs while still maintaining a high level of quality, even if it’s not quite as cheap as it is now.

replies(1): >>43489738 #
baazaa ◴[] No.43489738[source]
I once found some old price catalogues (early 20c) for shoes etc. and estimated the items there are barely any cheaper today in real terms. Now obviously that's partly because we have cheaper substitutes today, so we've lost economies of scale when building things the old-fashioned way and the modern equivalent has to be made bespoke... but it's still pretty alarming given we should be ~10x richer.

But consider an example which can't be blamed on that. My city (Melbourne) has a big century-old tram network. The network used to cover the city, now it covers only the inner city because it hasn't ever been expanded. We can't expand it because it's too expensive. Why could we afford to cover the whole city a century ago when we were 10x poorer? With increasing density it should be even more affordable to build mass-transit.

Obviously people blame the latter example on declining state capacity, but I'm not sure state capacity is doing any worse than Google capacity or General Electric capacity.

replies(4): >>43490448 #>>43490630 #>>43491328 #>>43491543 #
andai ◴[] No.43491328[source]
What declined is will, which is a function of testosterone (down about 50% since 1970).
replies(1): >>43492747 #
1. disgruntledphd2 ◴[] No.43492747[source]
> What declined is will, which is a function of testosterone

That's a really interesting claim. Do you have any sources that explain this further?

replies(1): >>43507300 #
2. andai ◴[] No.43507300[source]
Thanks. I spent a few minutes reflecting on this and googling papers.

Turns out that "will" is a vague concept and doesn't have great neurological or animal models.

However, we can use some reasonable proxies!

I would argue that "libido" is the most obvious one. I recently heard a multimillionaire admit (with some embarrassment) that "we really do all this to get girls."

( I assume "libido is a function of testosterone" requires no citation ;)

Testosterone directly affects dopamine levels, dopamine sensitivity, and willingness to engage in competitive behavior:

https://www.edenclinic.co.uk/post/testosterone-and-the-brain

Another factor is "goal-directed behavior", which is mediated indirectly by "increased sense of agency"

> these results further imply that through an embodied SoA, testosterone can ultimately modulate higher-order experiences of social power and goal-directed behaviour.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Effect-of-Testoste...

At the societal level there is a fascinating (and deeply disturbing) book by J. D. Unwin, who studied thousands of civilizations:

>The book concluded with the theory that as societies develop, they become more sexually liberal, accelerating the social entropy of the society, thereby diminishing its "creative" and "expansive" energy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_Culture

Notably, conscientiousness and executive function are not enhanced by testosterone. However, deficiency is associated with fatigue, depression, brain fog etc. So it supports "will" by supporting overall health, and a population-wide ~50% decline does not sound healthy to me.