Hacker News

points by hereme888 1 day ago | 0 comments

I've had the concern for years that AI users (or AI itself) will eventually consider non-AI users a pain, because humans will become inefficient in lots of workloads and management, sometimes causing things to come down to a screeching halt, relatively speaking.

We have to solidify laws protecting anti-AI-ers if that's their choice.

[–] paxy 1 day ago

This happens today with all technology. AI is no different. If your coworker refuses to use a computer or the internet there are no laws protecting them. Nor should there be.

[–] probably_wrong 1 day ago

There's a limit, though. Not only are there mandatory breaks for truck drivers, but also a maximum number of working hours my boss is allowed to demand from me. And even within those limits my boss is not allowed to dispense cocaine during tight deadlines.

We do have limits for how much work a human is allowed to do and, based on the experience of Amazon workers, they are due for some tightening already. I'm not seeing a clear case for AI but I wouldn't discount it entirely either.

[–] zamadatix 1 day ago

How would you see these types of limits applying to AI in a way that doesn't already apply to a normal tool?

[–] probably_wrong 1 day ago

I don't think the problem is whether these limits apply to normal tools or not, the same way it doesn't really matter that speed limits technically apply to horses too [1].

I imagine a solution would be a knowledge worker's bill of rights that declares the amount of output that one can reasonably expect from a human. You could add some measurements like "a knowledge worker cannot be expected to understand and take responsibility for more than X printed pages of work per day", with the expectations that if your employees are overworked then the accountability falls on you.

[1] DUIs too: https://www.loweringthebar.net/2026/04/still-illegal-to-driv...

[–] handoflixue 1 day ago

Should we also have a transportation worker's bill of rights, that sets the reasonable output that one can expect from a human? Would it be reasonable to set that rate based on what a human can deliver on foot, unassisted by any vehicle?

The whole point of a tool is that it increases the amount of output we can expect from workers. Otherwise we'd still all be doing agriculture, because the farmer's bill of rights sets the maximum output of a farm and there's not enough surplus for non-farmers.

[–] probably_wrong 21 hours ago

We do have a transportation worker's bill of rights. The vehicles may not tire but the drivers do, and therefore all truck drivers are entitled to mandatory rests. And self-driving cars (current ones, at least) have a similar issue: because the driver must be prepared to take the wheel at all times there's a whole bunch of "increased output" that they're not allowed to take advantage of, with a risk of serious jail time if they do.

IMO the key is risk: right now no one is taking responsibility of the AI errors (IMO by design), but the second we codify who's legally responsible for them we'll see calls for slowing down coming from those groups.

[–] zamadatix 1 day ago

Hmm, I suppose I see it the opposite - it's important these limits don't apply to one specific instance, just as the citation points out problematic things still apply if it's a horse rather than a car. That doesn't seem an accident/mistake, but a key part of making the limitation meaningful and well formed.

[–] archagon 1 day ago

That is not for you to decide!

[–] nater5000 1 day ago

>We have to solidify laws protecting anti-AI-ers if that's their choice.

Protect them from what, exactly?

[–] hereme888 1 day ago

Exclusion from society, and the object of anger at "those darn Luddites". You can't tell an Amish he can't use physical coins. Or that his buggy is too slow for the roads (not highways), etc.

[–] fishtoaster 1 day ago

But the Amish are heavily excluded from society. Amish that refuse to use computers can't work most jobs. Amish that won't use credit cards can't buy things at cashless stores/restaurants. Amish that don't use electricity basically can't live in major cities.

There are no legal carveouts for that.

[–] anikan_vader 1 day ago

Some places (including some places in the US) ban cashless stores. It seems reasonable to me to try to legally protect people who struggle to adapt to new technologies.

[–] hereme888 1 day ago

Not about struggling to adapt, but a willful choice for personal reasons.

[–] muvlon 1 day ago

But the Amish are nonetheless protected. Not by the law but by having a community of people around them willing to live with those same restrictions and provide for each other. I think that's much more likely to happen than legal protection also in the AI case.

[–] bemtevi 1 day ago

The Amish are even protected by law in some ways. They don't have to pay social security for one, which is more compatible with their lifestyle (they take care of their own).

[–] screamingninja 1 day ago

> roads (not highways)

Why not highways? That's an arbitrary line to draw.

[–] mrehler 1 day ago

In much of the US, some types of highways do have a minimum speed. It varies by state (and can even vary within a state). I believe most places have a minimum on Interstates of 40 MPH.

[–] nater5000 1 day ago

>Exclusion from society

We exclude plenty of people from society, at least in the abstract. Someone who simply acts weird can be excluded from society. There are certainly no law which forces people to include them?

>the object of anger at "those darn Luddites"

Again, I'm not sure what kinds of laws could reasonably prevent this. Seems like we're all basically free to criticize one another for personal beliefs. If that wasn't the case, then 99% of social media would be in constant breach of the law lol

>You can't tell an Amish he can't use physical coins

Well, for one, laws protecting the acceptance of US currency aren't specific to Amish people based on their beliefs. It's more about protecting the value of US currency. And two, private companies are allowed to not accept physical currency. Plenty of companies only accept credit card, etc. That's legal. And Amish people wouldn't be able to purchase goods and services from such places.

Of course, the Amish typically don't care about that, because they're not typically in the market for the kinds of goods and services offered by such businesses. In contrast, someone who is happy to consume modern technology accept AI for arbitrary reasons seems like someone who is making interacting with society unnecessarily complicated and difficult.

>Or that his buggy is too slow for the roads (not highways), etc.

Well, as you've alluded to, if we deem that their beliefs would end up causing a significant enough issue to society, then their beliefs don't get to override the rules of society. Amish people are free to use buggies where appropriate because it's not a problem. They are not allowed to use buggies on highways because it would be a safety issue.

Regardless, they're not protected because of their beliefs. They're just operating within the rules of society. You don't have to be Amish to legally ride a buggy on the side of a road. These aren't special protections carved out for Amish people. Which, again, is the point of this discussion:

You stated "We have to solidify laws protecting anti-AI-ers if that's their choice," and I'm asking, "Protect them from what, exactly?"

"Exclusion from society" or being "the object of anger at "those darn Luddites"" are not things which laws can generally help with. Anti-AI people are free to not use AI, be vocal about their opposition to AI, and even (try to) exclude those who use AI from society or make them the object of anger with regards to AI usage. All of that is fair. It works both ways. None of it is dictated by law.

[–] RunSet 14 hours ago

You might appreciate this short story by Gene Wolfe.

https://www.mediafire.com/file/2rjmnla9huwvklr/Last_Day.pdf/...

[–] eluru 23 hours ago

I dont want someone elses choices making my papperwork even slower and im sure most would agree, AI wont take charge of this but society? certainly will

[–] NickNaraghi 1 day ago

Market efficiency solves this. But whether that's healthy for society or not is an open question.

[–] kuboble 1 day ago

The same way as we protect those anti-internet or anti-electricity ?

[–] lelandfe 1 day ago

Some cities have laws limiting cashless businesses, as one example of that.

That’s inclusive of have-nots too, alongside the aforementioned no-thank-yous.

[–] bemtevi 1 day ago

We do protect them in some ways. People who don't want to use the internet should still have phone numbers to call, and they should still be able to go into a bank and store their money or cash their paycheques.

[–] bluefirebrand 1 day ago

The Amish have a bunch of protections and exemptions... So yes?

[–] ChickeNES 1 day ago

They shouldn’t

[–] hereme888 1 day ago

Precisely the ideology and attitude we need protection from

[–] platevoltage 1 day ago

Why should they? What's a good reason why laws shouldn't apply to everyone?

[–] hereme888 9 hours ago

Your premise is incorrect. They have a lifestyle based on their religion. It existed way before yours. You passing a law against a peaceful, highly prosperous, time-tested, religion-based lifestyle is unjust and oppressive.

[–] bluefirebrand 1 day ago

America land of the free*

As long as you enjoy your freedom the exact same way as everyone else

[–] lbreakjai 1 day ago

Freedom never meant that the society much be changed to accommodate you. You're free from persecution (Conditions apply), you're free to behave the way you want, to associate with who you want. Likewise, Society is free to not associate with you and move in a different direction.

[–] archagon 1 day ago

More likely the oligarchy will see them as an impediment to their trillion-dollar, world-consuming valuations: https://fortune.com/2026/10/28/openai-ceo-sam-altman-gen-z-d...

Which is actually much more dangerous.