5 ms·

"Fourth, we will not find ourselves working less. Rather, there will be a bimodal outcome: those unable to find a place in the new AI-powered industry will fall

"Fourth, we will not find ourselves working less. Rather, there will be a bimodal outcome: those unable to find a place in the new AI-powered industry will fall out of it entirely, while those that remain are worked harder and harder as they drive automated development systems. Five PRs a week? Hah! Try fifty. Or five hundred." My experience with AI/LLMs summed up. The baseline expectation got higher. I didn't get any time back. My life didn't become easier.

wiseowise 4mo ago
Why would it? Who, with a half brain, thought that you’d ever work less?
- watwut 4mo ago
  Literally no one, no one even claimed we would work less due to AI. It is one of many absurd claims about AI here. There was no period in which we would get think pieces predicting more leisure time. We had plenty of think pieces about making people obsolete, about destruction, generally in celebratory tone. I cant even think of period where AI think pieces would promises much positive - it was sold to CEOs, so pitch was always "higher unemployment".
  - graemep 4mo ago
    > Literally no one, no one even claimed we would work less due to AI. It is one of many absurd claims about AI here. There was no period in which we would get think pieces predicting more leisure time. https://www.newsbytesapp.com/news/business/ari-emanuels-3b-venture-aims-to-monetize-ai-induced-leisure-time/tldr https://www.newsbytesapp.com/news/business/ari-emanuels-3b-v... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/06/11/ignore-the-doom-mongers-ai-will-give-us-more-leisure-time/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/06/11/ignore-the-d... https://time.com/6268804/artificial-intelligence-pissarides-productivity/ https://time.com/6268804/artificial-intelligence-pissarides-... > I cant even think of period where AI think pieces would promises much positive - it was sold to CEOs, so pitch was always "higher unemployment". Higher unemployment means people work less.
    - watwut 4mo ago
      > Higher unemployment means people work less. Higher unemployment typically mean that people who are employed work more and under worst conditions - because their negotiation positions is much worst. Just about the last thing high unemployment means is that "the average employed person has more leisure time" or "average person in general have easier life". Conflating high unemployment with "worker has more free time" is beyond absurd. But OK, I dont read telegraph nor seen what that hedge fund guy was saying.
      - graemep 4mo ago
        That is true, but people work less overall. In many places it is more likely to reduce pay rather than hours or conditions because of legal limits.
  - wiseowise 4mo ago
    > Literally no one, no one even claimed we would work less due to AI. Yeah? What is this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADUlC-fWKsY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADUlC-fWKsY
- selfhoster1312 4mo ago
  Many economists, already from the 19th century, claimed that technological progress would reduce the workweek. Some imagined we'd work 3 days per week, others only 1. Some imagined we'd work a few hours everyday. I remember many people even on this very site claiming AI would help humanity. I think the most ridiculous the most ridiculous claim was helping fight climate change, but helping produce more leisure time by automating work was definitely what some people thought, or at least what they wanted us to think while pushing their crap.
  - CalRobert 4mo ago
    Those economists probably didn't think we'd make building a home default-illegal.
    - selfhoster1312 4mo ago
      That's true, but they also probably didn't think individual residence would become a norm (despite all the problems it generates), and probably didn't think secondary housing would become a normal for middle classes (vacations were a high bourgeoisie thing entirely until fairly recently).
9dev 4mo ago
As it was the case with all productivity catalysts in the past. The Industrial Revolution promised machines would work and we’d get to have leisure time. Instead, it brought 16 hour factory shifts. This will be no different
- Joker_vD 4mo ago
  > Instead, it brought 16 hour factory shifts. To paraphrase Marx, "And so, the equivalent amount of labour required to produce the goods needed to sustain a worker for a day is, say, 4 hours. But that doesn't mean the selfsame worker can work for no longer that 4 hours! He can be forced to work six, or eight, or twelve hours a day, and whatever additional goods he produces — that's the surplus product, which in this case goes straight to line up the factory owner's pockets".
  - barrkel 4mo ago
    It only goes into the factory owner's pocket to the degree that the factory has no competitors (has pricing power) and the factory owners don't work for the factory (i.e. RSUs and the like). Marx is great at building a narrative that generates resentment if you buy his frame. But you don't need to buy his frame, and if you don't, you suffer a lot less resentment. It's no way to live.
    - 9dev 4mo ago
      That applies to an awful lot of cases though? Especially during Marx' time.
      - barrkel 4mo ago
        The trouble is thinking in terms of class. It encourages one to generalize from instances to the group, and from the group to individuals. Cherry-pick your examples and you smear the group. Invoke the smeared group, and you target the individual. It's structurally isomorphic to racism and any other -ism.
frizlab 4mo ago
One of the big reasons why I hated AI since day one.
CalRobert 4mo ago
So long as we have a scarcity of necessities (housing comes to mind) peer competition will ensure that all increases in productivity accrue to the owners of capital, because you need to outcompete your peers for said necessity. Years ago I outbid some other people for a house in rural Ireland. (This is a longer way of saying "I bought a house"). It was a very cheap house. Those other people have their career choices* (like making pottery for a living vs being a remote software developer) constrained because they were outbid, in the same way that my own choices (like working 4 days a week vs 5) are constrained by e.g. people who are willing to work 5+ days a week 12 hours a day. * To be clear, I know very well that most people don't even have such a choice in the first place.

wiseowise 4mo ago

Why would it? Who, with a half brain, thought that you’d ever work less?

watwut 4mo ago
Literally no one, no one even claimed we would work less due to AI. It is one of many absurd claims about AI here. There was no period in which we would get think pieces predicting more leisure time. We had plenty of think pieces about making people obsolete, about destruction, generally in celebratory tone. I cant even think of period where AI think pieces would promises much positive - it was sold to CEOs, so pitch was always "higher unemployment".
- graemep 4mo ago
  > Literally no one, no one even claimed we would work less due to AI. It is one of many absurd claims about AI here. There was no period in which we would get think pieces predicting more leisure time. https://www.newsbytesapp.com/news/business/ari-emanuels-3b-venture-aims-to-monetize-ai-induced-leisure-time/tldr https://www.newsbytesapp.com/news/business/ari-emanuels-3b-v... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/06/11/ignore-the-doom-mongers-ai-will-give-us-more-leisure-time/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/06/11/ignore-the-d... https://time.com/6268804/artificial-intelligence-pissarides-productivity/ https://time.com/6268804/artificial-intelligence-pissarides-... > I cant even think of period where AI think pieces would promises much positive - it was sold to CEOs, so pitch was always "higher unemployment". Higher unemployment means people work less.
  - watwut 4mo ago
    > Higher unemployment means people work less. Higher unemployment typically mean that people who are employed work more and under worst conditions - because their negotiation positions is much worst. Just about the last thing high unemployment means is that "the average employed person has more leisure time" or "average person in general have easier life". Conflating high unemployment with "worker has more free time" is beyond absurd. But OK, I dont read telegraph nor seen what that hedge fund guy was saying.
    - graemep 4mo ago
      That is true, but people work less overall. In many places it is more likely to reduce pay rather than hours or conditions because of legal limits.
- wiseowise 4mo ago
  > Literally no one, no one even claimed we would work less due to AI. Yeah? What is this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADUlC-fWKsY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADUlC-fWKsY
selfhoster1312 4mo ago
Many economists, already from the 19th century, claimed that technological progress would reduce the workweek. Some imagined we'd work 3 days per week, others only 1. Some imagined we'd work a few hours everyday. I remember many people even on this very site claiming AI would help humanity. I think the most ridiculous the most ridiculous claim was helping fight climate change, but helping produce more leisure time by automating work was definitely what some people thought, or at least what they wanted us to think while pushing their crap.
- CalRobert 4mo ago
  Those economists probably didn't think we'd make building a home default-illegal.
  - selfhoster1312 4mo ago
    That's true, but they also probably didn't think individual residence would become a norm (despite all the problems it generates), and probably didn't think secondary housing would become a normal for middle classes (vacations were a high bourgeoisie thing entirely until fairly recently).

9dev 4mo ago

As it was the case with all productivity catalysts in the past. The Industrial Revolution promised machines would work and we’d get to have leisure time. Instead, it brought 16 hour factory shifts. This will be no different

Joker_vD 4mo ago
> Instead, it brought 16 hour factory shifts. To paraphrase Marx, "And so, the equivalent amount of labour required to produce the goods needed to sustain a worker for a day is, say, 4 hours. But that doesn't mean the selfsame worker can work for no longer that 4 hours! He can be forced to work six, or eight, or twelve hours a day, and whatever additional goods he produces — that's the surplus product, which in this case goes straight to line up the factory owner's pockets".
- barrkel 4mo ago
  It only goes into the factory owner's pocket to the degree that the factory has no competitors (has pricing power) and the factory owners don't work for the factory (i.e. RSUs and the like). Marx is great at building a narrative that generates resentment if you buy his frame. But you don't need to buy his frame, and if you don't, you suffer a lot less resentment. It's no way to live.
  - 9dev 4mo ago
    That applies to an awful lot of cases though? Especially during Marx' time.
    - barrkel 4mo ago
      The trouble is thinking in terms of class. It encourages one to generalize from instances to the group, and from the group to individuals. Cherry-pick your examples and you smear the group. Invoke the smeared group, and you target the individual. It's structurally isomorphic to racism and any other -ism.

frizlab 4mo ago

One of the big reasons why I hated AI since day one.

CalRobert 4mo ago

So long as we have a scarcity of necessities (housing comes to mind) peer competition will ensure that all increases in productivity accrue to the owners of capital, because you need to outcompete your peers for said necessity. Years ago I outbid some other people for a house in rural Ireland. (This is a longer way of saying "I bought a house"). It was a very cheap house. Those other people have their career choices* (like making pottery for a living vs being a remote software developer) constrained because they were outbid, in the same way that my own choices (like working 4 days a week vs 5) are constrained by e.g. people who are willing to work 5+ days a week 12 hours a day. * To be clear, I know very well that most people don't even have such a choice in the first place.