3 ms·

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).

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).