One thing I've seen with AI is AI as used by software developers is quickly diverging from AI that's used by knowledge workers.

Knowledge workers use it primarily to "augment" their work, answer questions with AI, get it to create documents, etc. But it's usually 1 individual to 1-2 conversation threads.

Meanwhile in software development were running fleets of agents. At work we have it setup where firing off one agent request will eventually lead to like 10-20 AI calls at different parts of the process.

I make this distinctions because it changes how each group thinks about AI. For software devs it just feels like "moving up the stack". Yeah you're not writing code anymore but there is still plenty of work to do and problems to solve within your "software factory". Contrast that with knowledge workers that feel like the AI is making all of their decisions for them.

I almost think of this as a factory worker versus an artisan. The software devs are "factory workers" where we used to be on the floor but now we're managing the machines that took over the work. There are still tons of interesting problems at that stage and you still feel like you have worth. Contrast that with a knowledge worker that's more of an artisan in this analogy. For them they aren't running a factory but instead watching a robot do the work they used to do while they sit idle and watch it.

> A new Amish-like lifestyle may be developing before our eyes in real-time and that's very interesting to follow and observe (from a distance).

I’m just old enough to remember some older adults in my life who refused to use email. They would only talk to coworkers in person or on the phone.

It did not work out very well, unless they could afford to retire at that point. When your career evolves, the only way to keep participating is to evolve with it.

What I see a lot of in my own industry (games) is that people that don't like AI either 1) see something that changes how they think of it and start the slow path of adoption or 2) continually dig their heels in and/or refuse to update their priors.

As technical qualms were solved and many other capability issues with AI have been solved, the continual heel digging and goal posting by group 2 has started to just feel more akin to a religious stance than something based on any specific fact. There is no version of AI that they want to see, they will oppose it on moral(-ish) grounds on sight, etc.

AI has real issues, but like you, observing this re-adjustment in realtime has been really interesting, especially as it seems to come from people I share 99% overlap in interest and politics with, but who hate AI like they do.

It also feels akin to de-radicalizing MAGA or something. The rejection or idea that they are wrong causes a whole worldview to collapse in something akin to ego death, so instead of facing that possibility they just insist they are right.

I think there’s a wide space between refusing any AI use, and refusing AI use requirements imposed by an employer. For example, one might find AI valuable for search, research, and getting a second opinion, but refuse it for primary generation of content.

AI is new but this phenomenon isn't. Every new wave of tech has sizable opposition.

People refused phone calls, refused to watch TV, refused to buy computers, refused to move their workflows to software, refused emails or browing the web, refused online shopping, refused smartphones, refused social media.

And there's nothing wrong with any of this. Ultimately everyone decides which stage of technology they are comfortable with. Everything until then is comfortable and convenient, and everything newer is corrupting society and rotting our brains.

Software is an employment rather than a profession. That distinction is important. Here is a definition of profession:

Traditional professions share essential characteristics. They provide a vital service to society, requiring expertise and skill developed through years of training, education, and experience. Professions establish standards of practice and certify that their members are qualified to serve the needs of society.

--US Army, ADP 6-22, Army Leadership and the Profession

Software does not have explicit standards of practice or a required body of certifications for its practitioners. Software, as an employment, is whatever an employer wants or is willing to accept at any given moment.

I'd be happy to do a 1999 Amish life style + LED TVs that don't spy on you.

Lol, what a slave mindset. Just because a technology exists, and most of the human cattle use it, does not mean that it's necessary for someone to use it.

AI is amazing, but it is not a tool anymore. Humans are the tools (agents) for AI to do things in real world. All the decision makers in business and polity are no longer able to rule out a direction provided by AI, making the AI the decision maker for humans. Even Fed is using "Sim Fed" to make rate decisions for the economy. The era of human-decision is over.

Also, you might think that you are observing Amish (or AImish) from a distance. It is same for them. They watch the modern world rot with uncontrolled and out-of-sync evolution. You are being observed.

I haven't read TFA yet, but having studied academically and then spent years implementing ML techniques for industrial applications (in the areas of machine vision and signals processing), I think that the premise of "AI exemption" is just nonsensical, by nature of being ill-defined. AI isn't a singular product or technology, it's an abstract family of computational techniques, some more complex or mathematically involved than others. Finding function parameters to fit data points using a least squares method is ML, therefore AI, and you would find that in every thermostat, ABS system or electric bike. Too simple? Here is a gradient of increasingly sophisticated ML techniques, with LLMs not even being on the top of the list. Where do you place the cursors of "what's too much AI"?

I've been reading articles suggesting that AI use alters ways of thinking. Humans certainly adapt to the tools they use. If this is true, and what a huge caveat that is, then the divergence in ways humans think: AI using and non-AI using will be interesting to watch. Although it will probably be decades before any significant conclusions are reached.

I find your Amish example is striking and accurate.

My new analogy for AI is that it produces an elaborate lunch buffet containing so many floral arrangements that considerable effort must be expended to find the food being served.

I am all in on (local and sovereign) AI, but people still call me Amish because I do not use a smartphone which has greatly increased my attention span and happiness. I imagine there will be plenty of people that are more productive at some tasks by choosing to abstain from one or more almost universally used technologies.

Calling people who don't want to use AI, Amish-like, is a huge stretch.

It's not an either or, really. I can concede it has utility authoring code while being repulsed by its use in creative works. I might operate Claude Code while actively avoiding any significant use of it in movies, books and music.

Aren't the AI users the Amish here?

They've stopped technological progress. I tell you since AI started taking over, my experience is that nearly all forward progress (in software at least) has come to a halt. We've been standing in place, maybe sliding backwards a bit.

Here's the thing about AI: intelligence isn't a new thing, and it isn't a tool. The Amish can tell you that having a brain doesn't meant that you don't need a plow. In some ways they're much smarter than the AI crowd, all of who loudly keep insisting that brains will make plows and tractors and combine harvesters obsolete. You're so convinced that intelligence is the ultimate replacement for tools that you've stopped climbing the tech tree of tools...

It's like the tech industry itself no longer believes in technology.

>> A new Amish-like lifestyle

Small thing: many/most of the people outsiders identify as Amish actually aren't. There are a variety of group living similar lifestyles, give or take. Collectively they are now described as the "Plain People", which links to both their apparently simple ways and mode of dress.

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

I find this man's ostrich response to be quite different from my world view, but agree that it is fascinating to confront. Given that so many of us consume the world via tiny handheld screens and vote the way they do, I think it is definitely worth considering an artificial intelligence hedge. AI Maternalism would be a wildly unpopular counter proposition at the moment, but you have to admit humans aren't succeeding at governance right now either. Some of the parody AI movements are pretty amazing to behold: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DI2fSgssIW2/. I know, I know, but I had points to spare.

I think there’s a chance for anti ai terrorism along with Amish style anti ai behavior.

Ai is stripping people away from their identity. There’s tons and tons of hatred for it… even here on HN.

Comparing people to Amish that dont want to use LLMs is wild.

Please read this:

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/97/05/18/r...

Technologists as a professional group are beyond weird. You usually expect rational critique (either positive or negative) from professionals, but the good technologists are supposed to just uncritically accept whatever supposed technological progress as an unalloyed good. Employer or Silicon Valley says it’s good, therefore think it is good. No, that’s a bit on the nose: Silicon Valley says it is good which means that it would be “good for my career”, therefore it is good. But are there any ill effects for society? Those are Luddite questions.[1]

But in this case Amish is not really an insult of course. I guess they are a hard-working people. Self-sufficient. And allow their young to take a sabbatical from the primitive life to see if it’s really something that they want to dedicate their life to.

On the other hand, of course there won’t be some Amish split. You can’t just pick and choose modernity. You can’t form a subculture of No AI. That’s why people are critical of AI; we live in a society.

[1] Being ahistorical and using Luddite as an insult also helps.

Yes, though from legal standpoint, this particular case isn't that interesting because its a religious exemption for religious work, where considering the moral and ethical boundaries is the main job?

But if someone was say, working on housing approvals and refused to use AI because of religious exemptions to do their jobs faster, I would hope any court would strike it down.

> I am very well interested in seeing how will people refusing to use AI fare

There are over 2 Billion people without Internet still and they survive.

https://www.weforum.org/stories/technological-innovation/2-5...

At my age of several decades, I lived several decades before the Internet even caught on and managed very well as did most people.

Questioning whether people might potentially not fare well by choosing to not use AI is what is truly puzzling to me about your comment.