Edit: Further, the only times "meat" appears is in the phrase "meat shield", which is an analogy that is very apt relative to the crux of the article.

Edit 2: "People" appears 13 times!

A company like Amazon doesn't treat its warehouse workers as human beings. Workers are seen as disposable: forced to piss in bottles, forced to work around the corpses of their collapsed coworkers, paid the absolute minimum possible, and replaced the second they don't operate like a perfect unfailing machine. You aren't viewed like a human, you are a tool. Cattle. A piece of meat they are forced to retain because a robot isn't quite capable of doing your task yet.

The article's use of "meat shields" isn't any different. Humans are going to be hired for the sole reason of taking accountability for actions dictated by AI. They are there only because the company can't put blame on a machine and will be sued to oblivion if there's nobody to blame at all. Your existence as a person is irrelevant, they are just interested in someone with a heartbeat they can blame when stuff inevitably goes wrong.

Relax, not everyone sees every article everyday

And obviously a way to filter in/out those flags.

[Author blocks link to avoid being potentially in violation of the law]

You ask author to willingly provide link to again potentially be in violation of the law

You do not see the irony in your question

If we think of the digitization tech revolution... the changes it made to the economy are hard to describe well, even now.

In the early days, it was going to turn banks from billion dollar businesses to million dollar ones. Universities would be able to eliminate most of their admin. Accounting and finances would be trivialized. Etc.

Earlier tech revolution s were unpredictable too... But at lest retrospectively they made sense.

It's not that clear what the core activities of our economy even are. It's clear at micro level, but as you zoom out it gets blurry.

Why is accountability needed? It's clearly needed in its context... but it's hard to understand how it aggregates.

Though something I half-miss is using my own software as I build it to get a visceral feel for the abstractions so far. I've found that testability is a good enough proxy for "nice to use" since I think "nice to use" tends to mean that a subsystem is decoupled enough to cover unexpected usage patterns, and that's an incidental side-effect of testability.

One concern I have is that it's getting harder to demonstrate ability.

e.g. Github profiles were a good signal though one that nobody cared about unless the hiring person was an engineer who could evaluate it. But now that signal is even more rubbish. Even readmes and blog posts are becoming worse signals since they don't necessarily showcase your own communication skills anymore nor how you think about problems.

I remember those days fondly and often wish I could return to them. These days it's not uncommon to go a couple days without writing a meaningful amount of code. The cost of becoming too senior I suppose.

How long do you think it'll take for the AI trend to mostly automate the parts of your job that still make you excited?

Everyone thinks it won't be them, it will be others that will be impacted. We all think what we do is somehow unique and cannot be automated away by AI, and that our jobs are safe for the time being.

Whether the tool is too powerful or ethical to use is an orthogonal discussion, in my opinion. Taken to the extreme, nuclear weapons still need someone fire or drop them. (We should still have discussions on safety and ethics always!)

Isn't this addressed explicitly in TFA, in section "meat shields"?

As for the rest, if you predict even the jobs described in TFA will be obsoleted by future LLMs+tools, then the future is even more dire than predicted by Aphyr, right? Fewer jobs for humans to do.