2 ms·
Yup, I understand. And through a very narrow definition of economics it makes sense. I just don't see the utility in viewing it this way. You've returned one
by jr3592 1mo ago
Yup, I understand. And through a very narrow definition of economics it makes sense. I just don't see the utility in viewing it this way.
You've returned one of the most valuable resources (time) back to a human. In my mind there's simply nothing more valuable, and no sign of of efficiency more poignant than that.
- simiones 1mo agoIt is actually a very relevant real-world definition - even though I agree with you on the intangible value of time. The reason why it is very relevant is that, in the way we have unfortunately structured our economy, the amount of work you have to do to be able to eat and enjoy your time will always expand to grow to at least force you to maintain (if not increase) your economic productivity. That is, if AI enables engineers to deliver 10x more features in the same unit of time, then their employers will expect them to deliver 10x more features to continue earning their current pay. So, while the AI did, in principle, allow you to just reduce your work schedule while getting the same pay, as you're providing the same results in 1/10th of the time, the economic system does not - your previous work is instead simply worth less than it used to be. Assuming you're not happy to take a 90% pay cut, you'll have to continue spending 40+ hour weeks, just using AI as well now.