all 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[+] 75 points 7 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (18 children)
  • [–] 13 points 7 months ago (16 children)

    imagine wrecking your life working to advance a thing for which the ultimate end goal is to replace you entirely

    That isn't new with AI. Non-AI Automation has been the goal (and achievement) of business for decades.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 7 months ago (15 children)

    Automation is great , everything should be automated as much as possible.

    IF everyone benefits from it in the form of higher wages/less working hours due to the higher productivity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago* (14 children)

    IF everyone benefits from it in the form of higher wages/less working hours due to the higher productivity.

    I know this is a common philosophical statement, but I haven't yet seen a great implementation of it in reality. I'm interested if your approach is viable.

    Scenario:

    Lets say we have a 25 year old worker named Jim. Jim was hired and his job for 1 year was to log into a system, look up specific values, and populate these values into fields in an Excel spreadsheet. At the beginning of the second year, a small Bash script (computer code) was written by an engineer and set to run on a repeating daily schedule that did all of the lookups and sheet population that was Jim's entire job. The entirely of Jim's job has been replaced by automation.

    Result:

    Jim no longer has any work to do for the organization. There aren't any other open positions at the company for Jim (or if there are Jim is not even remotely qualified to do those other jobs).

    • So how would you apply your philosophy to this situation?
    • Do you believe the organization should continue to employ Jim even without any work for him?
    • Should he be let go, but still paid? If so, how much, and for how long?
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago (9 children)

    UBI is the obvious solution to this and study after srudy has proven its efficacy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago* (7 children)

    I'm a proponent of UBI, but that has nothing to do with the "IF everyone benefits from it in the form of higher wages/less working hours due to the higher productivity" philosophy OP posted though.

    With UBI, Jim would be getting basic income (like everyone else) irrespective if he ever had the job in the example or not, and irrespective if the automation occurred or not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    Automation, in the case of UBI, would mean that the productivity gain would translate into less hour worked, with a minimum guaranteed revenue every month/year.

    The reality is that automation efficiency is going straight into capitalists pockets. And people having a bigger workload for the same amount of money as before.

    Without a societal shift, automation is not for the benefits of the general populace.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago* (5 children)

    Automation, in the case of UBI, would mean that the productivity gain would translate into less hour worked, with a minimum guaranteed revenue every month/year.

    That is a typical answer I get to my question. It fully contains the philosophy that automation gains will somehow be funneled into state coffers or UBI initiatives but its completely missing in any substance about how that translates into reality.

    The reality is that automation efficiency is going straight into capitalists pockets. And people having a bigger workload for the same amount of money as before.

    I gave an example with Jim above. At the end, Jim is out of work, and the organization has gained money because they aren't paying Jim, and their automation is doing the work now. Does your actual implementation of your philosophy attempt to tax or clawback some of what Jim was being paid? If so, how and against what metrics? Alternatively, do you propose that what pays the UBI is completely divorced from what the organization earns or pays?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    I wasn't the original OP.

    Capitalism as it is applied today is incompatible with any kind of increase in quality of life for the general population and any efficiency gain is pocketed by the richs, and the different branches of the government are captured in pretty much every country in the world.

    In a fairer world, companies would be highly taxed. To reduce the taxation burden, companies would need to invest in R&D, employees compensation and community building/support, which would include a UBI of some sort. Companies could still generate profit, but not in the absurd amount that we are seeing today.

    In that context, automation would be a no brainer.

    But I genuinely believe that UBI or anything similar will not happen in my lifetime because rich people's influence is too strong and the common person will vote against their interests because of the constant barrage of propaganda.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    I appreciate you taking about some general approaches you would like to see for your vision of UBI, but I'm still not seeing much actual application of what would happen for Jim, or his prior employer.

    To talk specifics I'm seeing we could do it from one of two periods of time:

    • UBI is just being implemented so its all new to everyone
    • UBI has been fulling implemented

    Each will have their own challenges and problems, so I want you to choose the best situation for your scenario. I'm trying to set you up for success in this conversation, because I want it to work too. However, I have yet to see a complete picture which I can see working.

    I'm guessing you'd like to work through this scenario in an example where your version of UBI is fully implemented and how it works for Jim in that siutation. Can we go from there?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (2 children)

    I have a different idea. The government should provide a jobs guarantee. There are plenty of things that need to be fixed in this country, and Jim can apply whatever skills he has to fixing some of them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    That would be a separate approach apart from mitigation against automation as @mitram@sopuli.xyz suggested. Its also separate from the UBI approach that scintilla@crust.piefed.social suggested. This third approach of a government jobs guarantee could certainly dive into, but that doesn't address the two other incomplete approaches provided so far.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago*

    Sure, but I'm not particularly interested in UBI. I think it makes the status quo income and wealth inequality permanent and sets it on a course to be ever expanding.

    If the overwhelming majority of able-bodied and sound-minded people cannot be organized to do useful work in the system you have, the system is inadequate, and needs to be supplemented.

    This country is falling apart physically and psychologically. There's enough work for anyone willing to do it to repair this place for a lifetime.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (3 children)

    In my opinion, go the Mondragón route. Bring democracy into the enterprise and allow those who work to control how they work. That way those who are being "automated" away can have a voice in what to do next.

    Also, your vision of human capacity is very limiting. Why can't Jim learn new skills? Everyone does it, literally all the time. Even construction workers have domain knowledge on how to pour cement that they learnt from others.

    If there is truly no capacity in that enterprise a social safety net might be the only viable option.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (2 children)

    In my opinion, go the Mondragón route. Bring democracy into the enterprise and allow those who work to control how they work. That way those who are being “automated” away can have a voice in what to do next.

    Isn't that what we already have today? Jim no longer has a job at this employer. Jim can choose where he works next.

    Also, your vision of human capacity is very limiting. Why can’t Jim learn new skills? Everyone does it, literally all the time. Even construction workers have domain knowledge on how to pour cement that they learnt from others.

    As shown in the example, Jim is not capable of learning the skills (in any reasonable amount of time) to take on another open position at that company. So are you suggesting that Jim go back to school? Who are you suggesting, in your vision, is pay for Jim's living and school expenses until he is ready to work a position with a higher skillset?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

    Jim no longer has a job at this employer. Jim can choose where he works next.

    He has to beg employers for a job, the employers get to choose where he works next.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

    If you look into what the "Mondragón route" is, you'll understand the differences to the current system.

    To sum it up, Mondragón is a federation of worker owned/controlled enterprises/cooperatives. Due to this innovative ownership model democracy is intertwined in all decisions in the companies. Therefore, Jim (workers) gets a real say on how automation is leveraged.

    About the possible career change. Mondragón handles it quite gracefully in my opinion. They have internal recruitment that attempts to relocate "obsolete" workers to other parts of the federation, as to avoid severing work relations entirely. They also invested early on in internal capacity to teach themselves through their technical schools. This way the profit of the automation is paying for the education of the workers it replaced.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 35 points 7 months ago (10 children)

    “Learn to work like this now or you will be left behind.” The “experts” say.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (7 children)

    well there goes my chances of landing a job. I had one thing mention a flexible work schedule and I asked them about it like can I make my own hours or shifts or decide how many hours to work or what. Did not hear back. Don't know if they don't like my questions or if they would have blown me off either way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    Flexible work schedule == working after hours, and on weekends. Always.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    if it does they did not reply to explain that. I see flexible work sechedule and I assume they are listing a perk.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    You can arrive 15 mins later than usual on every other friday. And you are expected to stay after your normal work hours for no additional pay.

    That's flexibility for you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    seriously people who do this need to stop. Do your 8 and your 40 but no more. I mean if you are being paid a premium which would be at least 200k in the us. Then fine do the bit extra but honestly most jobs asking for that are not giving enough. You should as a single income have zero worries about paying bills and have a good amount of disposable income to make it easier to enjoy the time you do have in that situation.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Interviewed at a place. Asked how many hours for a normal work week in engineering. They casually say 45-50. Mentally shut that door so damn fast.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago

    Honestly I assume 50 if it pays well. Im increasingly seeing where I think they want to float on the idea the experience will lead to a better job with the good pay but want all that. And they are looking for experience that someone would have had to be in the field at least 10 years to get so the person should not need the exp to get better pay. If the corps want to make the recruitment process a sodomy contest then imma out.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    I thought the point was to have AI do everything... if you're requiring 12 hour days, doesn't that just mean the AI is failing?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 21 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Remember kids, this is why you never EVER listen to techbros about how to structure society.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 7 months ago (8 children)

    996 is the most inhuman idea. What is the point?

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    To prop up the system that is needed to prop up the system.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Why would any human being consent to this being their life?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 7 months ago*

    The death-march work culture is the goal, not an unintended side effect of the way AI is being implemented by the oligarchs.

    It's time for one big union.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago

    Capitalism is a cancerous disease which will result in our self-annihilation if it isn’t stopped.

  • source
  • This doesnt stop until there are no more billionaires.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    MAGA is going to replace as many jobs as they can with AI and Robotics. Then MAGA will deal with the 50% unemployment rate by imprisoning people without jobs, are homeless, have too much debt, aren't otherwise employable, will go to work camps, where they will be leased out as slaves to corporations, causing another wave of job losses, and a 75% unemployment rate. And it's all going to happen much faster than anyone believes.

    Better start to figure out your own business now, so it can be up and running when 90% of traditional employment is replaced by AI, Robotics, and Slaves.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    It is comforting to know that this expensive as fuck, resource wasting technology that steals from everyone is here to make our life easier.

    My only question is; It is the optimal time to revolt before or after the billionaires perfect their murderbots?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    In fairness. When you sign up to work for a startup you have an idea what that means. AI startups are well known to be even worse. AI startups cost a lot more, so they have to move even faster before they run out of money. They also usually pay very well. And if the one you are at happens to make it really big, you might retire in your 20s.

    And... if you have worked at an AI startup for any length of time, every big company is looking to hire you. So you can easily leave anytime.

    So what I am saying is that these people made a choice. And they continue to make that choice everyday.

    Source: I have worked at startups (recently got aquired so stuck at a big company until my payoff vests). I intentionally ruled out the AI start ups, and thier equivalent before them, because I don't care to make it big. I want to work with top people who can do thier own jobs and with less overhead. But I have kids and hobbies that I don't want to give up. So I made my choice. These people can too.

  • source
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago

    Reminds me of MMO addiction.

  • source