I spent a lot of my life outside the English-speaking world, and this was a small sideline for a while.
I get it wasn't the nicest way to earn a living. My day job was loftier but poorly-paid.
Still, I've got respect for anyone who got by doing this, it can be fun and interesting with the right material, but the clients are often dicks and the money is rubbish. It's quite stressful too, even given the low stakes. I never wanted a bad grade.
My more significant sideline, and the one that ultimately got me into good work, was copy-editing. Also dead by AI.
It's hard not to be bitter about this. I needed those jobs to keep me going whilst I made it in my chosen field. The rich kids in my sector never had to hustle and won't be affected. The folks doing it out of Nairobi, and the state school kids trying to get by overseas will.
The article certainly signals that we're supposed to feel sympathy for the folks in Kenya. But they are knowingly helping people cheat, right? The next thing, we'll be asked to feel sympathy for moms who kill their kids.
> But they are knowingly helping people cheat, right?
In the same way a mom and pop pizza joint willingly serving someone who is trying to be on a strict healthy diet is helping people cheat, yes, but if McDonalds then rolled in and took away all their business, is there no room to feel sympathy for the loss of mom and pop's livelihood? It is not a binary situation.
That doesn't make sense. If you want to take the food angle then the other serves homework. If you want to take the fraud angle then the other facilitates dietary fraud.
To be fair your dietician/healthcare professional might also be disappointed, but you're ultimately right, just like with college nobody else cares. Of course, that was already implied from the onset. I find it intriguing that you've only just come to that realization.
In fairness, I wasn't doing this for Americans. I would say the Anglo-American model of schooling, which treats students like customers, is very much to blame.
The industry wouldn't exist if students were result expelled for cheating. It's pretty obvious when someone's doing it.
> I’m more and more convinced that all of AI engineering is Neijuan (内卷, meaning curl inwards). In China it describes a system that demands ever more effort and competition without improving output. The way in which it sometimes shows up in the West is the 996 nonsense. The English term for Neijuan is “Involution” from the book Agricultural Involution. Agricultural involution describes the intensification of farming that raises productivity per square meter while leaving productivity per head unchanged.
it reminds me of a thread I read on PTT, Taiwan's Reddit. AI finally achieved what humans could not. Managers must give exact context for what they want, must pay exact wages (tokens), and can't delay salary payments (which seems to be a problem in China).
Starting with agentic task-time "grounding" being just good documentation, and "skills" being just playbooks and user guides.
Hell, skills are increasingly paired with dedicated CLI tools, that remove jank from actual utilities and adapts them to be token efficient.
So now, any CLI `tool` people want AI to use eventually grows `tool/SKILL.md` and then a `tool-for-llms` wrapper that exposes task-specific, logical, higher level interface, then the skill is rewritten in terms of "for LLMs" wrapper. The procedural knowledge moves from Markdown into the wrapper, making the skill more token efficient, and both skill and the tools are optimized for common tasks and... at this point, we are doing actual UX engineering.
Now the truly interesting part is the difference between what's good UX/DX for LLMs vs humans. Turns out, the conceptual/abstract/cognitive part is pretty much the same: which is why skills still look indistinguishable from well-written documentation for humans, and why the commands exposed by "tool but for LLMs" make sense to us. Same way of grouping ideas into higher level concepts.
No, the main difference is just that LLMs are perfectly content with tightly packed unprettified JSON, or other forms of Perl line noise. The tool output doesn't need to look nice, or to have any spatial structure - they're reading it token by token anyway, and the tokens come from a tokenizer that's reading it byte by byte.
That points at an interesting asymmetry for humans. LLMs are doing I/O the same way in both directions: sequences in, sequences out. Humans only do sequential output - inputs, particularly visual, are processed holistically.
For us, what's easy to read is hard to write, and what's easy to write is hard to read. LLMs don't have this friction.
(I don't know what the implications of this are, I just find this interesting.)
I never quite realized this until just reading this and now it has come into sharp focus. Incredible.
I've spent years trying to convince my director to have our org invest in documentation and monitoring to no avail. Now he is telling us to spend dedicated time on monitoring and documentation so that agents can better diagnose and fix bugs. He is doing this because his boss is mad that our org isn't "agentic" enough.
Except... because we underinvested in the past we have a bunch of services where the institutional knowledge is gone and people are having AI write the documentation...
There is no “required” amount. More gets produced using the same area, using more people, but keeping these people in poverty because productivity per capita doesn’t increase. Instead the gains from the increased volume of production get captured by an elite. See https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41257-019-0021-y.
This sounds like all engineering, rather than just AI. The greatest effort given to the last small difficult details, often for results that seem trifling but which matter at scale.
But it's a poor argument. The code improvements with these things is hardly marginal - Opus 4 was only 16 months ago. How many of the grumblers would want to ditch their modern stalwarts and return to it? What is marginal is the nitpicking - and like anything in tighter bounds, it's more intense with a narrower scope.
These threads always have many dissatisfied voices with repeating complaints - about overwrought thinking and disappointing output - alongside others who are amazed at the sudden real extra capabilities. Both are true at once - capabilities are rapidly increasing, but nowhere near ideal, which is why this attempt to tag it as Neijuan, though interesting, is ultimately a load of bollocks.
It surely resonates if your reason for working is to extract wealth from others (ie. be a parasite) but if it's to improve things for everyone, then it's wonderful. You might still work just as much and get paid just as much but produce a lot more because of technology.
That's our moat, right there. I'm starting doing clean-up jobs now, advising non-technical users on where they're going wrong. I had a guy recently who'd spent well over a month on Claude, running up the wrong tree on a research question.
AI appears to be empowering non-technical users, but whether it's making them more productive or actually answering their questions is a completely different matter.
I'm also convinced software engineering tools like git and markdown are currently the best way to use AI for most things even unrelated to software development. E.g., I think using markdown notes + LaTeX + git for writing contracts is more
efficient than using Word + Copilot, which are the tools I would expect a lawyer to use.
totally agree with the repo idea. working with AI in a git repo and allowing it to write markdown files it slowly builds context over time. i knew a guy who had been using the same session for weeks because he felt he had invested too much time in building the context and was scared to close the session.
it can't basically, because all the ai's are build around the tech community, doing complex coding automation etc. nobody thinking about how normal user gone use it
I worked in PR for a bit. I'm confident in saying most of our information ecosystem is the product of numerous competing (or cooperating) PR agencies pushing their clients' products, policies, narratives, and national agendas.
If it's in a big news outlet, there's a pretty good chance someone put it there. Most news stories start life as press releases. Astroturf groups provide the quote-fodder.
If you're into this stuff, I can't recommend All the Worst Humans by Phil Elwood enough, fantastic read (to be taken with a pinch of salt, the guy's a PR hack after all). NYT review here: https://archive.md/cNmdV
Yeah, this is my use case for skills. Even with good documentation, it feels better to have things local and easy to tweak.
I'd add to that I've also used them as a style guide. The project involved taking in unstructured inputs and creating structured outputs. Lots of choices along the way, and it seemed a neat way to encapsulate decisions we'd made as a team.
Storage, well it's just for the one project, so the repo. Can't say I've used them beyond that.
This is the correct approach. If these American companies want to operate in our countries, and maintain their positions as our primary information channels, then they need to obey laws.
We need open APIs, transparent algorithms, and above all, accountability.
Aye, but it's also possible to waste an incredible amount of time on HN. I'd call it my main internet vice after lichess. Both are outwardly better than say, TikTok or Reddit, but if you're spending hours a day flitting unstructured between content, you're subject to both the fragmentation and time sink problems. Same as someone who spends the same amount of time caning TikTok. A little healthier (maybe not lichess) and less intense, but I'd argue also damaging.
lichess and HN are definitely on my "wasting time online" list. HN totally is social media. It has an "algorithm" it has gamification (upvotes/downvotes/flag/vouch/karma). It feeds you endless content which is mostly of questionable quality. It interacts with the same systems giving you dopamine highs and lows and chasing the next little boost.
When I'm traveling and I'm less online I don't miss either. Life feels simpler.
One thing I try to do more on lichess is to just do puzzles so I don't really get the same dopamine hit of games. I guess very long time controls might be better as well. I do make the excuse that it's at least using my brain and I have gotten much better at chess.
YouTube is really the other big problem. There is a lot of actually great content and then there's a lot of garbage. I don't do Reddit or TikTok at all.
It's hard to reach any other conclusion about where this is heading. I don't think we're long off a major breakout event.
These things are weapons. Imagine a government, pointing their data centers at another, and instructing the fleet to do its worst. Digital Hiroshima. I doubt we're far away.
I doubt that a government would do it, it's like releasing a biological weapon or a virus, too unpredictable - a swarm of unaligned intelligent agents may decide that it's more important to do something completely different from what it was prompted to do.
Yes that easy but "internet located things" are still second class things - paper and disks holds strong.
On the other hand just yesterday a think hit me: Interned is still an infant:
- we still worry about disk space accessible via inet and "clouds" do that for us and that is pain and costs way too much. And clouds depends heavilly on US-west - is that AWS a single thread app ? ;)
- we worry about transfer. Actually we do not have a way to transfer comfortable things from our homes to vacation location. Because it costs too much. We do not have home pages just because transfer prices (and some security on the top) - FB is a home page and people even do not know what "page" is anymore... Pipe companies could send so much more but they are simple lack imagination and are biggest blocker for - they literally sabotage their own business.
- security done by/for grandma of things grandma setup on inet is non existent. Why ? No need to be like that. Ok, a bit a wish but still users securely putting things on internet is almost non existent.
Just compare to "asphalt ropes" on the ground and you will see what Internet can be :)
And agents ? Just another computation on someones computer - someone paid for all of it. And OpenAI is just a face of that idiocy, for some unknown reason.
I read Nowhere to Hide recently, really worth it if you can get past Greenwald sticking himself in the middle (start halfway through).
The stuff in there is horrifying, and incredibly cute compared to what's possible now. The bottleneck back then would have been analysis, trivial now.
Everyone in the world, especially our leaders, sit under a colossal, omniscient blackmail machine. I don't believe democracy can exist under these conditions.
So following this to the obvious conclusion, the NSA is responsible for the closure of the Straight of America, high tarrifs, dropping employment, and high gas prices?
I get it wasn't the nicest way to earn a living. My day job was loftier but poorly-paid.
Still, I've got respect for anyone who got by doing this, it can be fun and interesting with the right material, but the clients are often dicks and the money is rubbish. It's quite stressful too, even given the low stakes. I never wanted a bad grade.
My more significant sideline, and the one that ultimately got me into good work, was copy-editing. Also dead by AI.
It's hard not to be bitter about this. I needed those jobs to keep me going whilst I made it in my chosen field. The rich kids in my sector never had to hustle and won't be affected. The folks doing it out of Nairobi, and the state school kids trying to get by overseas will.
A case of AI pulling the ladder.
reply