However, that’s not to say that many designer jobs will be going away, simply because for many cases, cost beats quality. We’ll just have more things with a much lower quality.
You can compare it with mass manufacturing. While some things are better had than not, even with low quality, we’d probably be better off with some things made to last, in lower quantity. But for 99% of the population, e.g. low quality clothing is the norm.
As if designers spend most of their time actually "designing". Same flaw of thinking with programmers and AI replacing their jobs. As if the main problem (and a major time waster) is actually programming and not dealing with a million of other things.
But AI is replacing programmer jobs. AI is taking on a part of those 'million other things' as well, and if you can shrink your organization due to AI use, many of those other things just go away.
I don’t know a single engineer that has been terminated and replaced with AI. I know lots of engineers that were terminated due to shifting jobs offshore for cost savings, over hiring during COVID, and a poor economy.
The job of the programmer/Designer will be to answer questions about what the program can do/not do and tweak it outside of Claude's abilities. To be able to answer those questions (like: can we do this ? will it fail under pressure ? etc) requires a deep understanding of the programs which you only have if you actually build them (with or without AI).
So, less jobs for sure, but not like 50% less jobs.
...assuming all design needs are currently being met. Countless companies would benefit greatly from hiring a designer but haven't been able to, because the cost has been too high relative to the gain. If design becomes cheaper and faster, those companies enter the market — so lower cost per project doesn't necessarily mean fewer designers overall.
Except there is getting around that simple math. Did you consider Jevons paradox? If design becomes more efficient, it will be used in more cases, and in return there will be more demand!
That’s not why they’re being bombed. They’re being bombed because they strive for nukes and ICBMs with ever larger range, all the while calling “death to america”.
P.S. downplaying their behavior to “distasteful”, is, well, distasteful.
Israel is interested in the fall of the Iranian regime, a thing that can only happen if the Iranian people will rebel against it. The last thing Israel wants is to have the Iranians rally behind the state’s flag.
Based on this cold calculation, bombing a school full of children would be counter productive, even if you believe the Israelis are just collecting children's blood to make matzahs (passover is just around the corner!).
On a more serious note, do you know the actual source for this claim? I don’t mean the news outlet, I mean what entity gave this to the news outlet.
> Israel is interested in the fall of the Iranian regime, a thing that can only happen if the Iranian people will rebel against it.
I personally don't believe in such appeals to rationality of parties waging wars. The issue is: if you wage a war, you can't control precisely what is going on. No one can. Like MH17 was shot down by pro-Russian separatists: who was interested in it? No one was, but still MH17 was shot down.
Israel bombed schools, it probably did it without clear intent to bomb them, but at the same time it means it is not very concerned about a couple of hundred of underage causalities. Like it was (and it is) not at all concerned about Palestinian causalities in Gaza. Moreover to my mind, it is the strategic stance of Israel: to be as brutal as possible to make neighbors to fear Israel. Israel does it for decades, it does it every time it wages a war. It means that now it just cannot wage a war without demonstrations of brutality. Even if it wanted to it just cannot, because on all levels of command people were taught to demonstrate brutality, and they were not taught how to wage war surgically. You can't overcome such a training on so many levels with a carefully crafted prompt.
> do you know the actual source for this claim? I don’t mean the news outlet, I mean what entity gave this to the news outlet.
> Ok, so the Iranian regime itself published this news? And you don’t even question it?
I question everything, and in this case I'm choosing to believe it. Such fakes are hard to forge, and as recent history shows such news are not fakes. Look at Russia which claimed that it did nothing wrong for how many times? Russia all the time tried to declare that everything is a fake forged by Ukraine. And if we look at what Ukraine did to Russia, we can't find a single example of a fake news forged by Russia.
A priori probability of this being a fake is low, and if you look into it, it is a pretty good "fake". No one still questioned it, while you can see some news from Iran that are clearly anti-regime news.
So, no, without clear evidence for this being a fake, I believe it is not a fake.
It's all over. NY Times writeup points to multiple sources and videos of destruction that they have authenticated. I don't think any body count has been independently verified.
Im saying political polarization needs to happen on the liberal side because its about 8 years behind conservatives on that front. When Trump showed up, no matter how much other conservatives disagreed with him - everyone got behind in rank and file. Meanwhile, the left purity checks each other all the time.
So if you are a democrat, and you want to make change, you need to behave exactly like conservatives do. Elections are decided by vibes, he who can attract the biggest social following through whatever means, wins.
However, that’s not to say that many designer jobs will be going away, simply because for many cases, cost beats quality. We’ll just have more things with a much lower quality.
You can compare it with mass manufacturing. While some things are better had than not, even with low quality, we’d probably be better off with some things made to last, in lower quantity. But for 99% of the population, e.g. low quality clothing is the norm.
reply