A human has something like 4-6 hours of good work in them per day and the balance should be on life rather than work so 3 days of max 6h could be a start.
Everything would work as is and better and we can adjust to less allocation
I don't care if they bring 0 work day if they pay me universal income. I could learn full stack, draw, read books, open a company, etc. Now all I do is word, excels, and a tiny bit of incident response.
Oh that note, looking back, Andrew Yang might have been the best choice for a nominy in 2020.
Imagine if chatGPT came out and then the president of US, who fully understands the enshitification and rug pull model of Silicon Valley just slapped a huge VAT tax on it, or maybe forced companies to charge the real price.
On February 17, 2022, Yang announced the launch of a Web3 community whose membership token fees would be used to fund lobbying work on behalf of Web3, blockchain, and cryptocurrency interests on Capitol Hill.[64]
Ideologically, Forward is populist and reformist, and a representative of centrism in the United States. It considers itself to be the center within the American political spectrum, although the party has also been described as big tent or syncretic due to its unwillingness on holding any firm stances or positions,[4]
Itās a shitty system if all you can do is hoping for the perfect president to fix everything while mega corps and billionaires are actively working to keep those guys out of office. You need a grass roots movement against billionaires, against lobbying and against presidential powers if you want a piece of that growing productivity cake.
Andrew Yang might have been known to treat his audience to a nominy, a folk orative tradition of speeches delivered with formulaic rhyming prose, much to the other nomineesā chagrin.
That would be a profound lack of imagination on companies. Raising prices to cover costs make sense since all businesses will be affected in the same way equally, but to just do it because everyone has more money doesn't, your competitor might just undercut you by keeping their prices the same, and then get all the profit.
Have you seen how the real economy works? It works by creating monopolies, fixing prices, lobbying for public contracts and subsidies and moving everything into private equity.
Do you think landowners won't leech every cent they can get away with?
Even when the progressives mention ubi it ALWAYS comes at the cost of removing all other social services like health care, low income housing, food stamps, social security. So imagine recieveing up to 5000+ dollars a month in benefits being taken away from you because the dumb majority is excited to get their 600-800 dollar a month bribe so that they can go yolo it all on ai driven polymarket.
We need more social welfare not less. Trump already is gutting social welfare services to pump that money into ai.
The homeless don't even get benifits now due to work requirements, and they can't get a job because they don't have a home. And RFK is talking about putting them in camps.
4 day work week would be already possible if we didn't use a sizable amount of our industry production to just make useless crap. It would be 3 days, if we abolished planned obsolescence and made thing repairable.
I hate how people are so used to getting ripped off that they hear āfour day work weekā and assume that itās going to be 4-10ās.
Like this is Bernie. Heās not perfect, but he gets this type of shit right. Obviously heās advocating a 32 hour, 4-day work week. It says so in the article that apparently no one read. But people are just so inured to everything getting worse all the time. Damn.
I also think companies should start paying for commute times, and that the time paid should be adjusted based on the cost of living in the area and the salary.
Of someone chooses to live 3 hours away when they could live in walking distance, that's one thing. But I work for a municipality in a prohibitively expensive area. 0 city employees live in the city they work and literally 100% of households are multi-millionaires or better. I have a 90-120 minute commute depending on traffic because that's where I can afford to live on my salary, but it also means I'm essentially working 3-4 hours extra a day.
Of course the city isn't gonna pay me 50% again more money, but if they were required to pay for my commute time they'd suddenly agree that I only really need to be in the office about once a week for public meetings since mostly what I do is Teams meetings, plan review, phone calls and emails, which could be done just as easily from my home office as at City Hall.
Shit - I get more done remote because I don't have to deal with people walking in without an appointment and demanding a meeting.
Not to be argumentative or anything like that, just wanted to state that I used to have a job where we worked 4 tens and I loved it. Two more hours a day kinda sucked, but having a 3 day weekend every week was nice. Granted, 4 8s would be better if I still made the same money every week.
The USA left "should" in about 1950. There is no "should" here.
Workers were abandoned by the Democrats long ago. Union membership is now less than 10% (and most of that is government employees, ironically)... it was almost 50% back in the "good old days".
There is no labor party in the USA, there is no anti-war party, there is no anti-billionaire party. There should be. But there's not.
where even is thr limit to "union busting" would the corporation striking against the employees by closing the sites where there were strikes for a few months be considered union busting despite being the same as ehat unions do to corps?
Stop giving AI more credit than it deserves. It's not going to change the world, it's not going to revolutionise industries, it's going to keep spitting out verbose nonsense until we get bored of it.
Im surprised there are still people down on this first step of the ladder you're lingering on.
Even most AI pessimists these days agree its useful as a force multiplier, allowing one person to do a bit more work in a given time frame, while still maintaining that its not competent enough to entirely replace a human in all but the most fringe cases.
"Its useless and acheives nothing" is not a realistic take and anybody who does any kind of office job and has used an ai in the past year would be able to tell you the same.
You can remain anti-ai while still being realistic that it can be useful.
Especially if you acknowledge that the product is not the root of the problem, the late-stage capitalist system its being built to serve is the problem.
It sure is useful at making my boss post a lot of conflicting things because AI canāt understand context at all. āForce multiplierā doesnāt mean itās multiplying good things. It can just as easily multiply nonsense.
Not really. The output of LLMs is massively increased global warming, increased prices of goods and services, decreased number of jobs, increased numbers of bugs in software, massive increase in wealth migration from poor to the rich, and increased surveillance. None of that has to do with the quality of the users. Just using it at all results in all of those things.
The current trends in software development are being driven primarily by the interests of venture capitalists who are trying to escape the debts they acquired buying into Web 3.0 (remember Web 3.0?), the Metaverse/VR, and cryptocurrency. They're looking for the next big get-rich-quick option, and manipulating the market to try and force it to happen. The people making decisions about which projects get funded literally do not care if the end product is useful or destructive or whatever, as long as it looks convincing enough to get other people to buy it. This is why there's been so much recent hype about "AI" "escaping" its test environments and hacking other companies &etc. It makes the product sound more capable than it is in reality. It's also why the Trump administration is all-in on "AI" development and actively threatening people who object - because Trump loves a good scam that he can make money off of, and he loves to respond with violence or threats of violence when people get in his way.
The current generation of machine learning models requires vast amounts of input data to achieve useful outcomes. The entire content of the public Internet has already been scraped and ingested. There is no more training data to feed in. The current systems will gain marginal improvements in efficiency and in focusing the models to perform better at certain tasks, but that will be it. They will not magically become capable of learning new tasks for which there is not millions of data points for training. The training is done, refining is in progress, but there will not be any major leaps in capability. There certainly won't be a general artificial intelligence.
Maybe the next generation of machine learning will produce software that can teach itself without an Internet's worth of input data. That will happen after the current market implodes, and another generation or two of research and development is completed.
Perhaps there is some value in the current generation as you say. Whatever the benefit of it might be, the cost is far too high. It is not and never will be worth the damage being done to the Internet, the economy, human society, and the environment we all live in.
And I haven't even gotten into generative models being used to create child exploitation material, run massive scam operations, produce massive amounts of propaganda, or enable the authoritarian surveillance state. This stuff is trash, the people in charge of the development are trash, the people peddling it are trash, the people funding it are trash, and the people that support it are trash.
You're treating the current resource cost as though it's a fixed characteristic of AI, when cost per unit of useful output has been collapsing the entire time. Stanford found that the inference cost of GPT 3.5 performance fell more than 280x in about two years because hardware and algorithms continue getting more efficient all the time.
Total AI energy use still rose because we're using vastly more of it, but thats obviously going to happen in an emerging market. If AI becomes 10x cheaper and more efficient while simultaneously becoming useful across millions more tasks, total consumption can increase even as the resource cost of doing any particular task falls dramatically, but efficiency will continue to improve as the technology develops.
Im not saying 'its good that its using all this energy', im saying dismissing it as doomed by its energy usage is short-sighted. Its not in its end form.
The other things you mentioned are all regulation issues stemming from a completely fucked political system, not fundamental issues with ai.
So what AI company can I invest in and start making money, today? Which one is a going concern with solid financials? Because Iām pretty sure none of them are actually making more money than theyāre spending on electricity. Because this tech doesnāt work on a very basic level.
Maybe it will get better. But itās been years and I havenāt seen it improve enough to be economically relevant.
Conflating profitability with usefulness. AI companies are burning billions on R&D, infrastructure and expansion. That doesn't mean the product isn't already creating value for users.
The real question is whether that value eventually exceeds the cost of providing it.
"Its useless and acheives nothing" is not a realistic take and anybody who does any kind of office job and has used an ai in the past year would be able to tell you the same.
I have an office job and I can tell you itās useless.
Sure you might feel like your being more productive but thatās only because your lowering your output quality.
Reducing cost by reducing quality has always existed.
Think about it this way, if you reach support helpline, would you feel like your getting the same quality support if itās a chatbot?
I also have an office job and can tell you I have uses for it.
I don't use it to produce anything, but where I am researching something and have run out of leads it can sometimes produce more which are then verified.
have run out of leads it can sometimes produce more
I sometimes use it for that too but imo thatās a downgraded replacement from asking a colleague or a more senior person.
The capitalist class has squeezed the workers so much that taking a step back and asking your peers can be seen as wasting time, but thatās when breakthroughs happened.
If your wondering why I use it, well I think big brother is probably watching so my use shouldnāt be zero. I would much rather have collaboration time
I suppose it's useful for writing those reports that have to be written because financial rules, but no one ever looks at. Reduced quality in that area is acceptable because the chances any of the documents are ever going to be looked at are minimal, and if they are looked at, the work the AI did was probably good enough, even if it wasn't to your normal standards.
Possibly, but there's no practical use for it in my industry, and everything I've seen it try and do has been, at best, mediocre. I've also noticed that the people who are most enthusiastic about it are never particularly impressive themselves.
Overall, I think it gets far more credit than it deserves, from both it's fans and critics.
Kinda makes sense that the people you see getting the most out of it aren't particularly "impressive" when a lot of its practical utility is in fairly mundane office and middle-management work, no?
But even fairly modest productivity gains multiplied across millions of workers can have enormous consequences.
Whether or not those workers will actually see any financial benefits out of it is a different question entirely.
You looked at the amount of solar the world has implemented over the last couple of years to compensate though?
Or how fast a unit of work has been getting exponentially cheaper over very short spaces of time?
You're not unreasonable in glancing at the situation and seeing Doom, dont get me wrong, but if you do more than glance there is a more positive picture forming.
Of course, political reform will be crucial or we're fucked either way.
The alternative means for producing sufficient energy for a better standard of living than most of us are privileged enough to experience has been around for several decades now(much longer with caveats).
These decisions to not only continue to use fossil fuels but to accelerate the pace of ecological destruction in the name of "compute", all the while failing to benefit or protect the rights of laborers, are purely political and always has been.
political reform will be crucial or we're fucked either way.
Politics is the choice between a solarpunk or a cyberpunk present. It could be better today if we simply choose.
I use it rewrite work emails, that way I don't have to put any thought into formatting or punctuation it's just a stream of consciousness that then translates into a proper formatted email. But that is pretty much it.
If my private life I don't use AI for anything, not because I have a particular hatred of AI, I just don't have anything that can think that it could be used for.
If the technology suddenly became unavailable, I'd be absolutely fine. I don't think it's a good idea to become too reliant on AI anyway, it leaves you vulnerable to price gouging. I like to keep all my thinking inside my own brain where it's free.
If you look at how exponentially cheaper individual units of work have become over the last few years there's no real reason to worry about price gouging. Particularly when there's still competition in the market, and open-source models.
Without those you'd have a point.
Im in a combined coding and marketing role so for me its a huge time saver. Far from perfect, but so am I.
Have any of the AI companies ever reduce their input output token prices I've always been under the impressive gone up. Not that I keep much of an eye on it.
You're talking about the cost to the consumer, where I was talking about the energy cost of an individual unit of work by a given model, but they're both relevant. The underlying energy cost of generating a token at a given level of capability has been falling as hardware and inference become more efficient. Those efficiency gains can feed through into lower token prices for users, but also a more capable model can often complete the same task with fewer tokens, fewer retries and less prompting.
So even if the headline price of a new frontier model looks similar or higher, the actual cost, both in energy and money, of getting a given piece of work done can still fall substantially. It'll keep doing so too, its still in its infancy.
I think it has some uses for people that can utilize it intelligently, but what what I've actually observed is it that it lets incompetent people look like they're doing more work while making more work for others.
Yeah i'd definitely agree, but that's not new. The equivalent 20 years ago would've been 'google-fu', but its the same with any tool, its only as good as the weilder.
A product can be useful to its users while the companies providing it are still unprofitable because they're spending enormous amounts on R&D, infrastructure and expansion.
This regurgitated, thought-terminating sentiment confuses utility with the providers current profit margin. Its fair enough to not understand how businesses operate but taking shots in the dark while not really knowing what you're talking about isnt sensible.
Thatās possible, but Iām not convinced. At a certain point, a world dominated by services that most people can no longer afford stops making economic sense.
Itās easy to look at the current trajectory and assume it continues indefinitely, but systems are more adaptive than that. As the playing field changes, businesses, governments and consumers change their behaviour too. The incentives themselves shift as the consequences become clearer.
LLMs improved significantly throughout 2024 until the first half 2025 and have now leveled off to more incremental gains instead of doubling benchmark scores within a few months. I think those days may be over. However, people who dismissed LLMs in 2024 and 2025 wonāt have a correct understanding of their current capabilities. Theyāre useful and will probably continue with incremental improvements, but theyāre also not a silver bullet that will magically produce high quality work without a competent human at the helm contributing most of the critical thinking and creativity.
That's a pretty ignorant statement. It has, objectively, changed the world. It has changed how we look at healthcare, politics, the economy, news, social media, the law, and countless other industries. Wtf do you mean it's not going to change anything? I'm not arguing for AI, but I'm frustrated at your head in the sand approach.
Wow, so if AI has changed all of these fields, there must be some AI company making money? ā¦right? It must be super easy to make money with such powerful tech, so there would obviously be a lot of good examples. Right?
The first couple of long weekends are nerve wracking but eventually your body enters rotting phase and then it's not so bad and you kinda don't want your 200 day weekend to end
To be fair, when I was in primary school, we were assured that the "digital revolution" (or whatever hype phrase was popular) would halve working hours, etc. What it didn't consider is that bosses would simply demand more productivity.
I mean at all. It didn't cross their minds that we'd be expected to be twice as productive now that everything was twice as quick. (And so on). š¤Æ
As history has shown, repeatedly, the only time a worker wins is when they unionise, protest and fight for improvements. You get nothing for free in the mediaeval, feudal system of the workplace.
I've had a few critisims with Bernie with what hes saying about ai recently.
I don't want to discredit him because I feel hes doing what he thinks is best, and honestly is kind of all we got for a big name right now. The people in the anti Ai space that I look up to havent really reached the average American you interact with daily in real life.
I think much like all the other politicians he doesnt fully understand the technology, and hes coming at it from the perspective he always has had. Which is protecting workers from corperations, and pushing for more socalist causes. Which I still think we need desperately, I'm not trying to say otherwise.
What I am concerned about is that Bernie is in some shape or form aiding these Ai companies in some way.
Like pushing for Ai devs who try to create agsi to be sent to prison for 20 years sounds great but then you realize that Sam altman and elon musk agree with him, and you wonder why. Regulation capture? A morally ethical excuse to slow down when ai is hitting brick walls in progress.
And with the idea of a 4 day work week, and ubi. In theory yes I do want those, but if you been paying attention to the conversations around Ai and stuff like ubi you learn that in order for ubi to work they have to remove social security, healthcare, food stamps, low income housing which cost dramatically more than the measly check you will receive every month. Thats my worst nightmare, everyone only gets 600-800 a month and is left to fend for themselves in a world where ai manipulates them with dark patterns into lighting national Forrest on fire so they can get rich on polymarket. Or they have to use the claud slot machine to pay for multiple spins on a chance to get working code for their gig working job, that takes a 30% cut ontop of all the api tokens.
So I'm torn in some ways because I'm worried that the path through all this is riddled with mine fields, and we could some how end up in position worse than we are in now just due to how much people are pushing for ANYTHING right now.
The change I ususally see fit is much more radical and not really realistic, and I don't see the general publics mindset really catching up for a few more years. And in two years the landscape could of changed dramatically.
I think it's as simple as the fact that he's old and just doesn't understand the tech and how it's mostly smoke and mirrors. He's probably got malicious people influencing him as well. It's sad but this why public servants need mandatory retirement before they get to this stage.
He's not been 'bought' or anything unless they've convinced him that they'll transfer his mind into an LLM or something so he'll live forever.
Seriously though that's probably going to be a selling point soon. Promising all the sick and dying people of this country a shot immortality (with the power of AI!) in exchange for votes and their life savings. Remember that cryonics scam? Anything to keep the bubble going.
I'm not anti berni in anyway I don't think hes malicious in any shape or form.
Just now that topic is on ai something I've been a little more tuned into I'm noticing the cracks.
I'd still support much of anything he is pushing for, because frankly he has much more lived experience for me and despite his lack of knowledge in some areas, vastly out performs me in all others.
Theres things in too stupid to understand, I'm not a economist, or a historian etc. I'm just some dude on the internet who spends too much time politicising everything. Maybe I'm wrong about things, and Bernie's one of the few that has earned enough trust with me where I would be blindly faithful. Like if he spearheaded a successful anti Ai, pro socalist movement theres a lot I would kind of feel I have to go along with, just to keep mom/dad or the kids from fighting in the family. If that anology makes sense.
I'd still spout my long winded over opinionated wall of texts on Lemmy and stuff, but I'd vote or go along with things I don't nessisarly agree with if I seemed like it at least brought us a little closer to where we should be.
I still don't trust when people talk about UBI though. (Not us I assume we have the best intentions here, but politicians, news ankers, podcasters, etc) Tell me the plan to make ai pay for it, and ensure me all social welfare service are intact and I'm all for it. But bribing everyone with cash to get rid of health services is insane. These companies have made every little thing as addictive as possible to extract wealth out of you, and that UBI check is just going to end up back in the hands of people like polymarket, fentenal dealers, and fast food companies.
Like we should do things like reducing the cost of fresh fruit and vegetables on food stamps so people could get more benifits while encouraging healthier eating. Instead food stamps have been dramatically reduced and require people to work. Well the poorest of the poor often don't have a home, and due to that they can't work.
What's worse is people like RFK are talking about bringing in labor camps, as if the prison belt wasn't making enough money from forced labor of the underclass. So we are actively creating yet another extractive/exploitative system which profits off of the suffering of the people who have it worst.
Even when the progressives mention ubi it ALWAYS comes at the cost of removing all other social services like health care, low income housing, food stamps, social security. So imagine recieveing up to 5000+ dollars a month in benefits being taken away from you because the dumb majority is excited to get their 600-800 dollar a month bribe so that they can go yolo it all on so driven polymarket.
We need more social welfare not less. Trump already is gutting social welfare services to pump that money into ai.
The homeless don't even get benifits now due to work requirements, and they can't get a job because they don't have a home. And RFK is talking about putting them in camps.
I don't see why UBI has to remove the rest of social services. Feels like that would fit in the "More social welfare" bin.
I don't need Bernie to fully understand AI before he continues advocating for the people. He also has enough of a track record to trust that he does not blindly believe the AI rhetoric, which is primarily pushed by the same Corpo types he usually rails against. I'd wager he's also for adding guard rails and protections.
Its good to keep pushing for good things, despite whatever noise is going on. Perfect being the enemy of good has sidetracked many an effort. Like conservatives have had no problem taking their little victories over the years chipping away at rights before going full out fascist. We need little victories do push back too.
It doesnt have to remove all the social welfare programs but every single time its mentioned in a discussion that's how its described to work. Not our discussions but think tanks, podcasts with politicians, news talking heads, etc.
Also if we keep losing the welfare services we have now due to ai, what makes you think suddenly they are going to be okay with adding more. Especially one of such massive scale to promise every single human cash money.
These people keep using the term effiecency as if welfare needs to be some profitable thing.
As a study of what these Ai people think we should look at asha sharma who used to hold a position at the Ai division at Microsoft, who recently took over as the lead for Xbox.
She is there to pretend they are doing compromise and working for the people, yet at the same time cannibalizing the product they are working on to further chase the all mighty ai dollar. Xbox game pass the cloud gaming service keeps hiking up prices, making ad tiers, and now adding 25 hours a month limit to how much you can stream. Xbox game pass is already doing the worst it has, and Xbox doesnt want to make game consoles anymore, meaning game pass is all they have. All that compute at the data centers is getting repurposed for Ai, leaving xbox to die on the vine. Potentially bringing down all the developers that it bought with it.
Asha sharma was recently asked to be apart of some federal reserve task force. If you ask me that sounds like she is going to be incharge of the same exact thing. Canabilizing the system she was meant to "help" and funnel those profits to ai.
And asha sharma is just the name that's in my head right now, this is practically everyone on goverment, or the head of a buisness. When they talk about UBI, its not because they believe in some greater good, or want their companies to get taxed more to pay for it. No its because it benifits them in some way. The system is pay to win, and people can easily be manipulated into fucking themselves over because they don't want to think two steps ahead.
True UBI should replace those other services, because it should be a basic income that allows people to survive without a job. You shouldn't need additional health care because we should have medicare for all. You shouldn't need low income housing because your UBI should be enough to pay for a modest home. You shouldn't need food stamps because UBI should cover it.
The fact that it's always framed as "$600 bribe!!!!!" is infuriating and absolutely wrong, because that's far from "basic." "Basic" would mean enough to live on, without requirement.
Again in theory I want ubi, but as I see it, its a way to reduce benifits.
Maybe the more I think about it I don't like it I'm not sure.
At its core ubi adds flexibility, and the ability for people to manage their resources at their own needs. At the same time that's part of the problem. Already social security doesnt cover it, there's people in their 70's still working at Walmart and thats including disabilities, healthcare, and food stamps if they still receive all those. I think UBI is better for private corperations to step in and capture that money instead of trying to assure peoples needs are met.
I just don't see how in the world we currently exist in how its going to work out. I feel like major structural change has to come first and we are better off with things like universal healthcare, state housing, etc.
That way it provides state/federal jobs. Often people critize goverment workers for being lazy, slow, and decently paid. I say yeah that's the point. If we are facing job loss having a form of guaranteed employment is nice. And having some inefficiency is good, providing a work life balance and not expecting ai to 3x peoples work loads is good for society.
Welfare shouldn't be this ai ran numbers maximizer for effiecency.
My workplace has hybrid system. 3 days in office and 2 days remotely.
It has shifted so, that people work their ass off during those 3 days using AI as much as possible and during those two remote days they just sit on their asses with a laptop running in the background, mouse jigger on.
Motor and legos should work fine. You just need to glue something on with a little more traction on it.
There is also a powershell script you can use to press numlock on-off in set intervals, but that's more visible to IT, if your company uses activity analysis.
We only get a quiz that badly teaches you the very basics of how to start a fire. A lesson I learnt when I was about 5. They call it fire safety but its mostly just what does a fire need to burn.
Duckduckgo did give me a github page for a ESP32 bluetooth mouse jigger. Not sure if compatible with ESP32-C6 because of the RISC-V. Had some issues. Thats why they are "laying around"
I used to travel regularly to Germany, spains and France, for instance work on production sites and equipment there. The standard legal working week currently in France is 35 hours. Currently data shows on average US workers work 34 hours a week. To be honest, itās not that far off from the 32 hours Sanders is suggesting in his legislation he is coauthoring
You're missing an important distinction, though: in the US, health benefits are tied to full-time employment, and most places consider anything under 35 to be part-time. I've had several jobs that would force me to clock off if I was at risk of hitting that full-time threshold. I had times where I was struggling to make ends meet, but they wouldn't let me work more. And, at least in my state, if you take on a second job, wages from the second job are taxed at a higher rate.
So 34 American hours and the benefits associated are very different from 35 French hours. Codifying the threshold for full-time employment at 32 hours instead will only benefit white collar workers. Everyone else will just get their hours cut even further and be driven further into poverty.
Basically, we really, really need to fix American healthcare before anything else, because until we're on a single-payer system, most changes to labor law will fuck the most at-risk populations.
And, at least in my state, if you take on a second job, wages from the second job are taxed at a higher rate.
that doesn't sound right...
the suggested withholding on second (or third) jobs is higher to make up for the fact that your first job's withholding is usually based on it being your only income source. in the end, you're taxed on your combined income, one job or three, it doesn't matter.
Very good points. Yes indeed that is a very important distinction. I agree 100% that the US healthcare system and its current for profit system needs to be fixed!
The issue is that you have to work 38 to 40 hours a week to get full time benefits, so most Americans aren't getting healthcare or vacation days at that level of employment, as they are considered "part time workers."
Denmark made the 32-hour workweek standard and their GDP went up. The fact that other countries arenāt following suit is proof that the capitalists donāt even follow their own statistical models.
The whole point of advancing technology is to make our lives easier. Why are we still working this hard after a century (or more) of extreme technological advancement?
Oh, a 4 day work week will come, with 4 hours of work per day (after an hour commute), to avoid paying you benefits. You'll need 2 or three of those jobs to pay rent along with your roommates.
I mean if it can do it all it should be technically a zero day workweek but we know that is not true. Honestly there should always be humans in the loop.
At that point people would be doing it because it's something they actually want to do, if we're assuming UBI comes with it.
But people actually like working (when their survival isn't dependent on it), so I don't think we'll ever reach the point where no humans are working. Even with UBI, you could still have paid jobs for non-essential spending.
I honestly probably only actually do three days worth of actual productive work a week, the other two days are spent in meetings which are necessary because management like to change procedures on a bi monthly basis, just to show everyone how in charge they are.
The whole "four-day workweek" thing, just say "higher pay" because what you're really asking for is that people get paid more per hour worked, such that they get paid the same, and only work four days instead of five. Why do you have to make it so complicated? PAY PEOPLE THEIR FAIR SHARE.
As Lenin said, "ŠŃŠ»Šø ŠŗŃŠ¾ Š½Šµ Ń Š¾ŃŠµŃ ŃŃŃŠ“ŠøŃŃŃŃ, ŃŠ¾Ń Šø Š½Šµ ŠµŃŃ", which roughly translated means "celui qui ne veut pas travailler n'a pas le droit de manger".
No, but seriously I think it should bring a zero-day workweek for almost everybody, eventually. Which would be a huge problem if it happens fast because not many of us know what to do with that much free time.
But if everyone gets paid for 4 days, does it really matter? I haven't heard a lot of stories about people becoming homeless and starving due to going from 45 hours/week to 37 in the past.
I don't know if that's a good quid pro quo.
At least in Canada the labor is plenty busy and would work weekends for the overtime.
The issue is pay and labor conditions at the lowest echelons. That includes kids coming out of universities.
They have to lower their expectations because their lack of experience makes them comparable to an AI assistant. But how are they suppose to become experts?
I already work a 4 day work week. 4/10's. I get up at 3 am. I fight traffic on the way home which doubles or triples my commute time home. It's not all it's cracked up to be.
I think 4/10's is already doable in a lot of industries but I question why they expect it to continue to be a 40 hour work week, or expect us to be paid more money for less hours. Nothing has trended that way in the entire time I've been alive. Feels like a pipedream.
I've done that to for a similar job and honestly there's not much difference as far as rest or relaxation is concerned. At best I can say having the extra week day for appointments is one of the few up sides of 4/10's.
The extra time per week spent in traffic for a shorter day has its down sides too and they equal out in my experience.
Less frustration in traffic, more frustration from not having the time to come to a more natural stopping point or finish bigger projects. It's a crapshoot either way.
This is why I mentioned shorter work weeks with less hours and the same pay. That might have more pros than cons.
I've worked 4/10's, 9/80's, 5/10's, 5/8''s and even 6/12's. That's not even counting the military. 9/80's was sort of better in a way especially in conjunction with federal holidays, but even then traffic was a nightmare. Public transit would have been even worse.
Oh Bernie Bernie Bernie. AI is 95% vaporware. Stop fretting about the shit they claim they'll produce but never will.
(Obviously changing technology requires some legal changes. Yes yes. But focus on the real shit that's already happened, not the bullshit they are promising.)
eh, i work in IT. the amount AI contributes is astounding. unfortunately i know one university having their compsci students now doing their projects using AI.
i know one university having their compsci students now doing their projects using AI.
How to promote brain atrophy...
But I guess it's difficult for Universities to adjust, indeed...
And yes, I agree, I write less and less manual code, but it's not fun.
Endless context switching is really not promoting flow states, that I had when I programmed for ours... Which I consider what made it fun in the first place.
Me too. But do you think people outside of IT will get the same boost? I think that 90% of IT work would be totally redundant if people knew a little of Python, all we do is guardrails upon guardrails. I have a suspicion that AI constrained enough for your average office worker to understand what its doing is not going to be terribly productive.
207 Comments
unitedwithme@lemmy.today · 140 pts · 2d
I'm willing to work 4x 7 hour days. If you think about the last 30 years of computer enhancing productivity, we're owed a lot!
SeductiveTortoise@piefed.social · 73 pts · 2d
I work like a truck, so 4x4 would be appropriate.
harmbugler@piefed.social · 49 pts · 2d
I work like a piece of wood, so 2x4 is all I'm asking
frank@sopuli.xyz · 23 pts · 2d
And they're really like 1.6x3.5
jimerson@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 2d
I work like a Dolly, 9 days a week 5 hours a day.
SeductiveTortoise@piefed.social · 5 pts · 2d
She would be so proud of you š„¹
pipi1234@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 2d
Thank you, it was a long time since I shared this insightful graph. https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/
W98BSoD@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 2d
Why not 3x 7 hour days if the productivity gains are that greatā½
acosmichippo@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 2d
yeah other places like the netherlands already did 4 day weeks before AI. we can go further.
greenbit@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 1d
A human has something like 4-6 hours of good work in them per day and the balance should be on life rather than work so 3 days of max 6h could be a start.
Everything would work as is and better and we can adjust to less allocation
TeaWithDani@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 2d
4x6 with 1 hour for lunch. 2 hour lunch break if I have to go to the office.
Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 1d
Does nobody think about the managers?
/s
gergolippai@lemmy.world · 110 pts · 2d
it's kinda bringing a "0 hour work" week for a lot of people.
themachinestops@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 46 pts · 2d
I don't care if they bring 0 work day if they pay me universal income. I could learn full stack, draw, read books, open a company, etc. Now all I do is word, excels, and a tiny bit of incident response.
I went to college for spreadsheets.
TransCanadaHighway@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 10 pts · 2d
Obligatory shoutout to read David Graeber's "Bullshit Jobs".
radiouser@crazypeople.online · 79 pts · 2d
It needs to bring a UBI with it.
Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works · 24 pts · 2d
Oh that note, looking back, Andrew Yang might have been the best choice for a nominy in 2020.
Imagine if chatGPT came out and then the president of US, who fully understands the enshitification and rug pull model of Silicon Valley just slapped a huge VAT tax on it, or maybe forced companies to charge the real price.
Man Biden was such a bad choice in 2020
apudgypanda@lemmy.zip · 15 pts · 2d
corpo dems gonna corpo
HarkMahlberg@kbin.earth · 12 pts · 2d
I'll give you that on Biden but nuh uh on Yang.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Yang
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_Party_(United_States)
CosmoNova@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
Itās a shitty system if all you can do is hoping for the perfect president to fix everything while mega corps and billionaires are actively working to keep those guys out of office. You need a grass roots movement against billionaires, against lobbying and against presidential powers if you want a piece of that growing productivity cake.
Septimaeus@infosec.pub · 1 pts · 2d
Andrew Yang might have been known to treat his audience to a nominy, a folk orative tradition of speeches delivered with formulaic rhyming prose, much to the other nomineesā chagrin.
OrganicMustard@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 2d
UBI without price control is useless. Rent is just going to go up by that amount and same for utilities, food, etc.
echodot@feddit.uk · 1 pts · 2d
That would be a profound lack of imagination on companies. Raising prices to cover costs make sense since all businesses will be affected in the same way equally, but to just do it because everyone has more money doesn't, your competitor might just undercut you by keeping their prices the same, and then get all the profit.
OrganicMustard@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 2d
Lol.
Have you seen how the real economy works? It works by creating monopolies, fixing prices, lobbying for public contracts and subsidies and moving everything into private equity.
Do you think landowners won't leech every cent they can get away with?
jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works · -1 pts · 21h
landlords are to centralized, and too regulated to provide affordable services
Delilah@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 2d
My sweet summer child....
coolman@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2d
That assumes that everything isn't either owned by monopolies, trusts, or even just companies all agreeing to hike prices
SLVRDRGN@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 1d
Speaking of lack of imagination...
FoxAlive@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 1d
Copy paste from another reply to a comment:
Even when the progressives mention ubi it ALWAYS comes at the cost of removing all other social services like health care, low income housing, food stamps, social security. So imagine recieveing up to 5000+ dollars a month in benefits being taken away from you because the dumb majority is excited to get their 600-800 dollar a month bribe so that they can go yolo it all on ai driven polymarket.
We need more social welfare not less. Trump already is gutting social welfare services to pump that money into ai.
The homeless don't even get benifits now due to work requirements, and they can't get a job because they don't have a home. And RFK is talking about putting them in camps.
ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world · 52 pts · 2d
4 day work week would be already possible if we didn't use a sizable amount of our industry production to just make useless crap. It would be 3 days, if we abolished planned obsolescence and made thing repairable.
OrganicMustard@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 2d
According to Bullshit Jobs it would be less than half the working hours if we just stopped doing those
Almacca@aussie.zone · 3 pts · 1d
I think he estimated we'd only need to work about 15 hours per week.
kestrel7_7@lemmy.world · 49 pts · 2d
I hate how people are so used to getting ripped off that they hear āfour day work weekā and assume that itās going to be 4-10ās.
Like this is Bernie. Heās not perfect, but he gets this type of shit right. Obviously heās advocating a 32 hour, 4-day work week. It says so in the article that apparently no one read. But people are just so inured to everything getting worse all the time. Damn.
chiliedogg@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 2d
I also think companies should start paying for commute times, and that the time paid should be adjusted based on the cost of living in the area and the salary.
Of someone chooses to live 3 hours away when they could live in walking distance, that's one thing. But I work for a municipality in a prohibitively expensive area. 0 city employees live in the city they work and literally 100% of households are multi-millionaires or better. I have a 90-120 minute commute depending on traffic because that's where I can afford to live on my salary, but it also means I'm essentially working 3-4 hours extra a day.
Of course the city isn't gonna pay me 50% again more money, but if they were required to pay for my commute time they'd suddenly agree that I only really need to be in the office about once a week for public meetings since mostly what I do is Teams meetings, plan review, phone calls and emails, which could be done just as easily from my home office as at City Hall.
Shit - I get more done remote because I don't have to deal with people walking in without an appointment and demanding a meeting.
multiplemigs@sh.itjust.works · 9 pts · 1d
best companies can do is: fuck you get back in the office. butts in seats. 29/8 grindset. āįµ¢āā āā
JustPlainDave@lemmy.zip · 7 pts · 1d
Not to be argumentative or anything like that, just wanted to state that I used to have a job where we worked 4 tens and I loved it. Two more hours a day kinda sucked, but having a 3 day weekend every week was nice. Granted, 4 8s would be better if I still made the same money every week.
Mulligrubs@lemmy.world · 37 pts · 2d
"Should"
The USA left "should" in about 1950. There is no "should" here.
Workers were abandoned by the Democrats long ago. Union membership is now less than 10% (and most of that is government employees, ironically)... it was almost 50% back in the "good old days".
There is no labor party in the USA, there is no anti-war party, there is no anti-billionaire party. There should be. But there's not.
heartSagan5@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 1d
Well, union busting prevents workers from banding coallitions and adding the unions. F-, blame Walmart and Amazon.
village604@adultswim.fan · 4 pts · 1d
That was a thing long before Amazon and Walmart. It's just capitalism in action
jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works · -1 pts · 21h
where even is thr limit to "union busting" would the corporation striking against the employees by closing the sites where there were strikes for a few months be considered union busting despite being the same as ehat unions do to corps?
Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
Back in the 50s they thought automation would mean weād all have too much free time.
Too bad anyone left of Nixon was a communist.
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works · 32 pts · 2d
Stop giving AI more credit than it deserves. It's not going to change the world, it's not going to revolutionise industries, it's going to keep spitting out verbose nonsense until we get bored of it.
NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 47 pts · 2d
Im surprised there are still people down on this first step of the ladder you're lingering on.
Even most AI pessimists these days agree its useful as a force multiplier, allowing one person to do a bit more work in a given time frame, while still maintaining that its not competent enough to entirely replace a human in all but the most fringe cases.
"Its useless and acheives nothing" is not a realistic take and anybody who does any kind of office job and has used an ai in the past year would be able to tell you the same.
You can remain anti-ai while still being realistic that it can be useful.
Especially if you acknowledge that the product is not the root of the problem, the late-stage capitalist system its being built to serve is the problem.
tyler@programming.dev · 36 pts · 2d
It sure is useful at making my boss post a lot of conflicting things because AI canāt understand context at all. āForce multiplierā doesnāt mean itās multiplying good things. It can just as easily multiply nonsense.
NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 2d
Like any tool, the user plays a key role in the quality of the output.
athatet@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 1d
Yeah but itās also just kind of a shitty tool.
NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -3 pts · 1d
Thats a take, but if you pair that sentiment with what I just said it paints a funny picture.
athatet@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 1d
Like if I went to the store and bought a cheap hammer and it breaks after a few swings itās a shitty tool. No matter my expertise with said tool.
NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -4 pts · 1d
That analogy only works if the AI literally stops functioning after a few uses.
A better comparison would be a tool that performs badly when used for the wrong job or by someone who doesn't know its limitations.
āSometimes produces bad outputā isn't the same thing as āshitty tool.ā
Which just feeds back into what I've already said. Shall we go around again?
tyler@programming.dev · 2 pts · 1d
Not really. The output of LLMs is massively increased global warming, increased prices of goods and services, decreased number of jobs, increased numbers of bugs in software, massive increase in wealth migration from poor to the rich, and increased surveillance. None of that has to do with the quality of the users. Just using it at all results in all of those things.
NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 1d
You're confused, those things are the outputs out late-stage capitalism.
untropvertimide@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 1d
Both can be true.
NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 1d
Usually id agree but im not sure that really applies here.
NaibofTabr@infosec.pub · 31 pts · 2d
https://pluralistic.net/2026/09/12/god-in-the-box/#llms-are-fake
The current trends in software development are being driven primarily by the interests of venture capitalists who are trying to escape the debts they acquired buying into Web 3.0 (remember Web 3.0?), the Metaverse/VR, and cryptocurrency. They're looking for the next big get-rich-quick option, and manipulating the market to try and force it to happen. The people making decisions about which projects get funded literally do not care if the end product is useful or destructive or whatever, as long as it looks convincing enough to get other people to buy it. This is why there's been so much recent hype about "AI" "escaping" its test environments and hacking other companies &etc. It makes the product sound more capable than it is in reality. It's also why the Trump administration is all-in on "AI" development and actively threatening people who object - because Trump loves a good scam that he can make money off of, and he loves to respond with violence or threats of violence when people get in his way.
The current generation of machine learning models requires vast amounts of input data to achieve useful outcomes. The entire content of the public Internet has already been scraped and ingested. There is no more training data to feed in. The current systems will gain marginal improvements in efficiency and in focusing the models to perform better at certain tasks, but that will be it. They will not magically become capable of learning new tasks for which there is not millions of data points for training. The training is done, refining is in progress, but there will not be any major leaps in capability. There certainly won't be a general artificial intelligence.
Maybe the next generation of machine learning will produce software that can teach itself without an Internet's worth of input data. That will happen after the current market implodes, and another generation or two of research and development is completed.
Perhaps there is some value in the current generation as you say. Whatever the benefit of it might be, the cost is far too high. It is not and never will be worth the damage being done to the Internet, the economy, human society, and the environment we all live in.
And I haven't even gotten into generative models being used to create child exploitation material, run massive scam operations, produce massive amounts of propaganda, or enable the authoritarian surveillance state. This stuff is trash, the people in charge of the development are trash, the people peddling it are trash, the people funding it are trash, and the people that support it are trash.
Get correct.
NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 2d
Get correct while making dead arguments haha.
You're treating the current resource cost as though it's a fixed characteristic of AI, when cost per unit of useful output has been collapsing the entire time. Stanford found that the inference cost of GPT 3.5 performance fell more than 280x in about two years because hardware and algorithms continue getting more efficient all the time.
Total AI energy use still rose because we're using vastly more of it, but thats obviously going to happen in an emerging market. If AI becomes 10x cheaper and more efficient while simultaneously becoming useful across millions more tasks, total consumption can increase even as the resource cost of doing any particular task falls dramatically, but efficiency will continue to improve as the technology develops.
Im not saying 'its good that its using all this energy', im saying dismissing it as doomed by its energy usage is short-sighted. Its not in its end form.
The other things you mentioned are all regulation issues stemming from a completely fucked political system, not fundamental issues with ai.
kestrel7_7@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 2d
So what AI company can I invest in and start making money, today? Which one is a going concern with solid financials? Because Iām pretty sure none of them are actually making more money than theyāre spending on electricity. Because this tech doesnāt work on a very basic level.
Maybe it will get better. But itās been years and I havenāt seen it improve enough to be economically relevant.
NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 1d
Conflating profitability with usefulness. AI companies are burning billions on R&D, infrastructure and expansion. That doesn't mean the product isn't already creating value for users.
The real question is whether that value eventually exceeds the cost of providing it.
Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works · 29 pts · 2d
I have an office job and I can tell you itās useless.
Sure you might feel like your being more productive but thatās only because your lowering your output quality.
Reducing cost by reducing quality has always existed.
Think about it this way, if you reach support helpline, would you feel like your getting the same quality support if itās a chatbot?
harmbugler@piefed.social · 3 pts · 2d
I also have an office job and can tell you I have uses for it.
I don't use it to produce anything, but where I am researching something and have run out of leads it can sometimes produce more which are then verified.
Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 2d
I sometimes use it for that too but imo thatās a downgraded replacement from asking a colleague or a more senior person.
The capitalist class has squeezed the workers so much that taking a step back and asking your peers can be seen as wasting time, but thatās when breakthroughs happened.
If your wondering why I use it, well I think big brother is probably watching so my use shouldnāt be zero. I would much rather have collaboration time
echodot@feddit.uk · 0 pts · 2d
I suppose it's useful for writing those reports that have to be written because financial rules, but no one ever looks at. Reduced quality in that area is acceptable because the chances any of the documents are ever going to be looked at are minimal, and if they are looked at, the work the AI did was probably good enough, even if it wasn't to your normal standards.
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works · 15 pts · 2d
Possibly, but there's no practical use for it in my industry, and everything I've seen it try and do has been, at best, mediocre. I've also noticed that the people who are most enthusiastic about it are never particularly impressive themselves.
Overall, I think it gets far more credit than it deserves, from both it's fans and critics.
NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 2d
Kinda makes sense that the people you see getting the most out of it aren't particularly "impressive" when a lot of its practical utility is in fairly mundane office and middle-management work, no?
But even fairly modest productivity gains multiplied across millions of workers can have enormous consequences.
Whether or not those workers will actually see any financial benefits out of it is a different question entirely.
untorquer@quokk.au · 10 pts · 2d
Good yes finally! We need to burn the planet for modest productivity gains.
NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 2d
You looked at the amount of solar the world has implemented over the last couple of years to compensate though?
Or how fast a unit of work has been getting exponentially cheaper over very short spaces of time?
You're not unreasonable in glancing at the situation and seeing Doom, dont get me wrong, but if you do more than glance there is a more positive picture forming.
Of course, political reform will be crucial or we're fucked either way.
untorquer@quokk.au · 2 pts · 1d
You can't compensate for wantan abuse.
The alternative means for producing sufficient energy for a better standard of living than most of us are privileged enough to experience has been around for several decades now(much longer with caveats).
These decisions to not only continue to use fossil fuels but to accelerate the pace of ecological destruction in the name of "compute", all the while failing to benefit or protect the rights of laborers, are purely political and always has been.
Politics is the choice between a solarpunk or a cyberpunk present. It could be better today if we simply choose.
NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 1d
Agreed š¤·āāļø
Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 2d
So business created inefficient ways of working then pat themselves on the back when they come up with an expensive shortcut?
Or you know, office processes are the problem.
Feyd@programming.dev · 3 pts · 2d
Trust me... middle managers using LLMs are not doing anything but throwing slop everywhere
NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 2d
What were they doing before?
Feyd@programming.dev · 3 pts · 2d
The good ones? Nothing that benefits from LLMs and isn't made worse by being slopped up.
NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 2d
Imo, they're just doing the same shit slightly faster. Whether or not it has value is separate and mostly in the eye of the beholder.
Slop is a thought-terminating buzzword, you're relying on it too heavily to make your point and it undermines you.
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 2d
Oh, I think we both know the answer to that question.
echodot@feddit.uk · 5 pts · 2d
I use it rewrite work emails, that way I don't have to put any thought into formatting or punctuation it's just a stream of consciousness that then translates into a proper formatted email. But that is pretty much it.
If my private life I don't use AI for anything, not because I have a particular hatred of AI, I just don't have anything that can think that it could be used for.
If the technology suddenly became unavailable, I'd be absolutely fine. I don't think it's a good idea to become too reliant on AI anyway, it leaves you vulnerable to price gouging. I like to keep all my thinking inside my own brain where it's free.
NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 2d
If you look at how exponentially cheaper individual units of work have become over the last few years there's no real reason to worry about price gouging. Particularly when there's still competition in the market, and open-source models.
Without those you'd have a point.
Im in a combined coding and marketing role so for me its a huge time saver. Far from perfect, but so am I.
echodot@feddit.uk · 3 pts · 2d
Have any of the AI companies ever reduce their input output token prices I've always been under the impressive gone up. Not that I keep much of an eye on it.
boonhet@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 2d
The chinese models are getting cheaper now that they have "flash" variants
NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 2d
You're talking about the cost to the consumer, where I was talking about the energy cost of an individual unit of work by a given model, but they're both relevant. The underlying energy cost of generating a token at a given level of capability has been falling as hardware and inference become more efficient. Those efficiency gains can feed through into lower token prices for users, but also a more capable model can often complete the same task with fewer tokens, fewer retries and less prompting.
So even if the headline price of a new frontier model looks similar or higher, the actual cost, both in energy and money, of getting a given piece of work done can still fall substantially. It'll keep doing so too, its still in its infancy.
Feyd@programming.dev · 5 pts · 2d
I think it has some uses for people that can utilize it intelligently, but what what I've actually observed is it that it lets incompetent people look like they're doing more work while making more work for others.
NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -1 pts · 2d
Yeah i'd definitely agree, but that's not new. The equivalent 20 years ago would've been 'google-fu', but its the same with any tool, its only as good as the weilder.
athatet@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 1d
Knowing how the google search engine worked and being able to utilize it to its full potential is not at all equivalent to vibe sloping.
NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 1d
Explain why.
kestrel7_7@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2d
If itās so useful, then surely all these AI companies are making money, right? Iāll wait
NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 1d
What are you waiting for?
A product can be useful to its users while the companies providing it are still unprofitable because they're spending enormous amounts on R&D, infrastructure and expansion.
This regurgitated, thought-terminating sentiment confuses utility with the providers current profit margin. Its fair enough to not understand how businesses operate but taking shots in the dark while not really knowing what you're talking about isnt sensible.
psx_crab@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 2d
I have no opinion on this conversation, i just wanna acknowledge your username and how it fit the conversation.
Sabdalo@tardigram.com · 1 pts · 2d
The problem is that before we reach a compromise between usability, efficiency, fairness, and the jobs it will destroy, weāll already be screwed...
NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 2d
Thatās possible, but Iām not convinced. At a certain point, a world dominated by services that most people can no longer afford stops making economic sense.
Itās easy to look at the current trajectory and assume it continues indefinitely, but systems are more adaptive than that. As the playing field changes, businesses, governments and consumers change their behaviour too. The incentives themselves shift as the consequences become clearer.
melfie@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 1d
LLMs improved significantly throughout 2024 until the first half 2025 and have now leveled off to more incremental gains instead of doubling benchmark scores within a few months. I think those days may be over. However, people who dismissed LLMs in 2024 and 2025 wonāt have a correct understanding of their current capabilities. Theyāre useful and will probably continue with incremental improvements, but theyāre also not a silver bullet that will magically produce high quality work without a competent human at the helm contributing most of the critical thinking and creativity.
Funkt4st1c@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 2d
Yeah but 4x8 workdays are gonna be just as productive as 5x8, if you factor in general mood improvements.
Using AI as a scapegoat is fine, i guess
Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2d
If employers are going to be dumb enough to use it, workers should be protected.
Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 2d
That's a pretty ignorant statement. It has, objectively, changed the world. It has changed how we look at healthcare, politics, the economy, news, social media, the law, and countless other industries. Wtf do you mean it's not going to change anything? I'm not arguing for AI, but I'm frustrated at your head in the sand approach.
kestrel7_7@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 2d
Wow, so if AI has changed all of these fields, there must be some AI company making money? ā¦right? It must be super easy to make money with such powerful tech, so there would obviously be a lot of good examples. Right?
Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
I never claimed it made money, I didn't even suggest anything positive resulting from these changes.
magnue@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 2d
Average Lemmy AI doomer
W3dd1e@lemmy.zip · 30 pts · 1d
I suspect many of us will be getting 7 day weekends whether we want it or not.
ThunderComplex@lemmy.today · 13 pts · 1d
The first couple of long weekends are nerve wracking but eventually your body enters rotting phase and then it's not so bad and you kinda don't want your 200 day weekend to end
AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
How does farming or the trades interest you?
W3dd1e@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 13h
Everyday, I wish that I had become an electrician.
Unfortunately, I canāt afford to go back to school.
Hazelnutcookiez@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 1d
I work in a call center doing customer support, I fear this every day.
redditStinksSuperBad@lemmy.world · -10 pts · 1d
What a stupid fucking statement. There's not going to be any workers left.
mriormro@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 1d
fucking lol
Brewchin@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 1d
To be fair, when I was in primary school, we were assured that the "digital revolution" (or whatever hype phrase was popular) would halve working hours, etc. What it didn't consider is that bosses would simply demand more productivity.
I mean at all. It didn't cross their minds that we'd be expected to be twice as productive now that everything was twice as quick. (And so on). š¤Æ
As history has shown, repeatedly, the only time a worker wins is when they unionise, protest and fight for improvements. You get nothing for free in the mediaeval, feudal system of the workplace.
IamMoonPie@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 1d
How about a four day work week and no AI? Iām so done with this timeline.
Almacca@aussie.zone · 17 pts · 1d
We should have a 4 day work week anyway, maximum.
Joelk111@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
4 10 hour days, right?
/s
bold_atlas@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 1d
Let AI take over in exchange for 4 work days? Nope. Still not worth it even it we would get it.
And jesus christ, Bernie. Please don't let this AI psyslop marketing campaign be the note you end on. :-(
I mean what's next? Bernie Coin?
FoxAlive@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 1d
I've had a few critisims with Bernie with what hes saying about ai recently.
I don't want to discredit him because I feel hes doing what he thinks is best, and honestly is kind of all we got for a big name right now. The people in the anti Ai space that I look up to havent really reached the average American you interact with daily in real life.
I think much like all the other politicians he doesnt fully understand the technology, and hes coming at it from the perspective he always has had. Which is protecting workers from corperations, and pushing for more socalist causes. Which I still think we need desperately, I'm not trying to say otherwise.
What I am concerned about is that Bernie is in some shape or form aiding these Ai companies in some way.
Like pushing for Ai devs who try to create agsi to be sent to prison for 20 years sounds great but then you realize that Sam altman and elon musk agree with him, and you wonder why. Regulation capture? A morally ethical excuse to slow down when ai is hitting brick walls in progress.
And with the idea of a 4 day work week, and ubi. In theory yes I do want those, but if you been paying attention to the conversations around Ai and stuff like ubi you learn that in order for ubi to work they have to remove social security, healthcare, food stamps, low income housing which cost dramatically more than the measly check you will receive every month. Thats my worst nightmare, everyone only gets 600-800 a month and is left to fend for themselves in a world where ai manipulates them with dark patterns into lighting national Forrest on fire so they can get rich on polymarket. Or they have to use the claud slot machine to pay for multiple spins on a chance to get working code for their gig working job, that takes a 30% cut ontop of all the api tokens.
So I'm torn in some ways because I'm worried that the path through all this is riddled with mine fields, and we could some how end up in position worse than we are in now just due to how much people are pushing for ANYTHING right now.
The change I ususally see fit is much more radical and not really realistic, and I don't see the general publics mindset really catching up for a few more years. And in two years the landscape could of changed dramatically.
bold_atlas@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
I think it's as simple as the fact that he's old and just doesn't understand the tech and how it's mostly smoke and mirrors. He's probably got malicious people influencing him as well. It's sad but this why public servants need mandatory retirement before they get to this stage.
He's not been 'bought' or anything unless they've convinced him that they'll transfer his mind into an LLM or something so he'll live forever.
Seriously though that's probably going to be a selling point soon. Promising all the sick and dying people of this country a shot immortality (with the power of AI!) in exchange for votes and their life savings. Remember that cryonics scam? Anything to keep the bubble going.
FoxAlive@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 1d
I'm not anti berni in anyway I don't think hes malicious in any shape or form.
Just now that topic is on ai something I've been a little more tuned into I'm noticing the cracks.
I'd still support much of anything he is pushing for, because frankly he has much more lived experience for me and despite his lack of knowledge in some areas, vastly out performs me in all others.
Theres things in too stupid to understand, I'm not a economist, or a historian etc. I'm just some dude on the internet who spends too much time politicising everything. Maybe I'm wrong about things, and Bernie's one of the few that has earned enough trust with me where I would be blindly faithful. Like if he spearheaded a successful anti Ai, pro socalist movement theres a lot I would kind of feel I have to go along with, just to keep mom/dad or the kids from fighting in the family. If that anology makes sense.
I'd still spout my long winded over opinionated wall of texts on Lemmy and stuff, but I'd vote or go along with things I don't nessisarly agree with if I seemed like it at least brought us a little closer to where we should be.
I still don't trust when people talk about UBI though. (Not us I assume we have the best intentions here, but politicians, news ankers, podcasters, etc) Tell me the plan to make ai pay for it, and ensure me all social welfare service are intact and I'm all for it. But bribing everyone with cash to get rid of health services is insane. These companies have made every little thing as addictive as possible to extract wealth out of you, and that UBI check is just going to end up back in the hands of people like polymarket, fentenal dealers, and fast food companies.
Like we should do things like reducing the cost of fresh fruit and vegetables on food stamps so people could get more benifits while encouraging healthier eating. Instead food stamps have been dramatically reduced and require people to work. Well the poorest of the poor often don't have a home, and due to that they can't work.
What's worse is people like RFK are talking about bringing in labor camps, as if the prison belt wasn't making enough money from forced labor of the underclass. So we are actively creating yet another extractive/exploitative system which profits off of the suffering of the people who have it worst.
ilinamorato@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 1d
4-day workweek and UBI, please.
HalfSalesman@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
A UBI would effectively enable a 4 day work week regardless.
FoxAlive@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 1d
Even when the progressives mention ubi it ALWAYS comes at the cost of removing all other social services like health care, low income housing, food stamps, social security. So imagine recieveing up to 5000+ dollars a month in benefits being taken away from you because the dumb majority is excited to get their 600-800 dollar a month bribe so that they can go yolo it all on so driven polymarket.
We need more social welfare not less. Trump already is gutting social welfare services to pump that money into ai.
The homeless don't even get benifits now due to work requirements, and they can't get a job because they don't have a home. And RFK is talking about putting them in camps.
NEZ27@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 1d
I don't see why UBI has to remove the rest of social services. Feels like that would fit in the "More social welfare" bin.
I don't need Bernie to fully understand AI before he continues advocating for the people. He also has enough of a track record to trust that he does not blindly believe the AI rhetoric, which is primarily pushed by the same Corpo types he usually rails against. I'd wager he's also for adding guard rails and protections.
Its good to keep pushing for good things, despite whatever noise is going on. Perfect being the enemy of good has sidetracked many an effort. Like conservatives have had no problem taking their little victories over the years chipping away at rights before going full out fascist. We need little victories do push back too.
FoxAlive@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 1d
It doesnt have to remove all the social welfare programs but every single time its mentioned in a discussion that's how its described to work. Not our discussions but think tanks, podcasts with politicians, news talking heads, etc.
Also if we keep losing the welfare services we have now due to ai, what makes you think suddenly they are going to be okay with adding more. Especially one of such massive scale to promise every single human cash money.
These people keep using the term effiecency as if welfare needs to be some profitable thing.
As a study of what these Ai people think we should look at asha sharma who used to hold a position at the Ai division at Microsoft, who recently took over as the lead for Xbox.
She is there to pretend they are doing compromise and working for the people, yet at the same time cannibalizing the product they are working on to further chase the all mighty ai dollar. Xbox game pass the cloud gaming service keeps hiking up prices, making ad tiers, and now adding 25 hours a month limit to how much you can stream. Xbox game pass is already doing the worst it has, and Xbox doesnt want to make game consoles anymore, meaning game pass is all they have. All that compute at the data centers is getting repurposed for Ai, leaving xbox to die on the vine. Potentially bringing down all the developers that it bought with it.
Asha sharma was recently asked to be apart of some federal reserve task force. If you ask me that sounds like she is going to be incharge of the same exact thing. Canabilizing the system she was meant to "help" and funnel those profits to ai.
And asha sharma is just the name that's in my head right now, this is practically everyone on goverment, or the head of a buisness. When they talk about UBI, its not because they believe in some greater good, or want their companies to get taxed more to pay for it. No its because it benifits them in some way. The system is pay to win, and people can easily be manipulated into fucking themselves over because they don't want to think two steps ahead.
ilinamorato@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 11h
True UBI should replace those other services, because it should be a basic income that allows people to survive without a job. You shouldn't need additional health care because we should have medicare for all. You shouldn't need low income housing because your UBI should be enough to pay for a modest home. You shouldn't need food stamps because UBI should cover it.
The fact that it's always framed as "$600 bribe!!!!!" is infuriating and absolutely wrong, because that's far from "basic." "Basic" would mean enough to live on, without requirement.
FoxAlive@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 1h
Again in theory I want ubi, but as I see it, its a way to reduce benifits.
Maybe the more I think about it I don't like it I'm not sure.
At its core ubi adds flexibility, and the ability for people to manage their resources at their own needs. At the same time that's part of the problem. Already social security doesnt cover it, there's people in their 70's still working at Walmart and thats including disabilities, healthcare, and food stamps if they still receive all those. I think UBI is better for private corperations to step in and capture that money instead of trying to assure peoples needs are met.
I just don't see how in the world we currently exist in how its going to work out. I feel like major structural change has to come first and we are better off with things like universal healthcare, state housing, etc.
That way it provides state/federal jobs. Often people critize goverment workers for being lazy, slow, and decently paid. I say yeah that's the point. If we are facing job loss having a form of guaranteed employment is nice. And having some inefficiency is good, providing a work life balance and not expecting ai to 3x peoples work loads is good for society.
Welfare shouldn't be this ai ran numbers maximizer for effiecency.
Asafum@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 2d
"sorry, best we can do is 2 shit jobs 7 days a week. AI took all the good ones and we're not sharing a fucking thing with you"
random_character_a@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 2d
My workplace has hybrid system. 3 days in office and 2 days remotely.
It has shifted so, that people work their ass off during those 3 days using AI as much as possible and during those two remote days they just sit on their asses with a laptop running in the background, mouse jigger on.
dephyre@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 2d
A full screen PowerPoint/Google Slides also keeps your machine awake.
random_character_a@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2d
Yeah. Plugging in a USB device that you bought online is a risk, unless you have enough knowhow to analyse it first on your machine running a wm.
Safer mouse jigger is a small slow electric motor and some legos.
myrmidex@belgae.social · 2 pts · 2d
Any solutions for trackball mice?
random_character_a@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2d
Motor and legos should work fine. You just need to glue something on with a little more traction on it.
There is also a powershell script you can use to press numlock on-off in set intervals, but that's more visible to IT, if your company uses activity analysis.
HerbGrower@slrpnk.net · 2 pts · 2d
How paranoid are you if you test every USB device? OK got a new memory stick or keyboard. Gotta test it!
random_character_a@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 2d
Plugging shit you ordered from Amazon or Aliexpress on your company laptop is a definate no no, unless you can be sure.
HerbGrower@slrpnk.net · 8 pts · 2d
The company laptop isn't mine, that makes it the perfect test environment!
random_character_a@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2d
We have mandatory biannual courses with a quiz on how not to be you. š
They really suck ass, but I see they have an actual function.
HerbGrower@slrpnk.net · 3 pts · 2d
We only get a quiz that badly teaches you the very basics of how to start a fire. A lesson I learnt when I was about 5. They call it fire safety but its mostly just what does a fire need to burn.
Fuel, oxygen and an arsonist!
areakode@riskeratspizza.com · 1 pts · 2d
A $2 Arduino Nano with mouse juggler code. Very easy to set up, and you know the exact code running on it.
random_character_a@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
I do have ES32-C6 chips laying aroung š¤
areakode@riskeratspizza.com · 1 pts · 1d
Unfortunately, ESP32s aren't compatible with HID input. You'll want an Arduino Nano. They can act as a direct input device.
Though I wonder if you could get that to work as a BLE keyboard... That could be possible.
random_character_a@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
Duckduckgo did give me a github page for a ESP32 bluetooth mouse jigger. Not sure if compatible with ESP32-C6 because of the RISC-V. Had some issues. Thats why they are "laying around"
18107@aussie.zone · 11 pts · 1d
If less work needs to be done by humans, does that mean we can have Universal Basic Income, and get paid extra for the jobs that still need humans?
seasidechapel@lemmy.zip · 10 pts · 2d
I used to travel regularly to Germany, spains and France, for instance work on production sites and equipment there. The standard legal working week currently in France is 35 hours. Currently data shows on average US workers work 34 hours a week. To be honest, itās not that far off from the 32 hours Sanders is suggesting in his legislation he is coauthoring
tmyakal@infosec.pub · 21 pts · 2d
You're missing an important distinction, though: in the US, health benefits are tied to full-time employment, and most places consider anything under 35 to be part-time. I've had several jobs that would force me to clock off if I was at risk of hitting that full-time threshold. I had times where I was struggling to make ends meet, but they wouldn't let me work more. And, at least in my state, if you take on a second job, wages from the second job are taxed at a higher rate.
So 34 American hours and the benefits associated are very different from 35 French hours. Codifying the threshold for full-time employment at 32 hours instead will only benefit white collar workers. Everyone else will just get their hours cut even further and be driven further into poverty.
Basically, we really, really need to fix American healthcare before anything else, because until we're on a single-payer system, most changes to labor law will fuck the most at-risk populations.
adarza@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 1d
that doesn't sound right...
the suggested withholding on second (or third) jobs is higher to make up for the fact that your first job's withholding is usually based on it being your only income source. in the end, you're taxed on your combined income, one job or three, it doesn't matter.
seasidechapel@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 1d
Very good points. Yes indeed that is a very important distinction. I agree 100% that the US healthcare system and its current for profit system needs to be fixed!
AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 2d
The issue is that you have to work 38 to 40 hours a week to get full time benefits, so most Americans aren't getting healthcare or vacation days at that level of employment, as they are considered "part time workers."
JcbAzPx@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
It literally says for the same pay and benefits. You didn't even have to read the article.
AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
I was responding to the comment, not the article
JcbAzPx@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
The comment you responded to is referring to the article.
seasidechapel@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 1d
Thatās true, a very good point!
Almacca@aussie.zone · 2 pts · 1d
Tying healthcare to employment in the first place needs to end.
kestrel7_7@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 2d
Denmark made the 32-hour workweek standard and their GDP went up. The fact that other countries arenāt following suit is proof that the capitalists donāt even follow their own statistical models.
twig@feddit.dk · 5 pts · 2d
Uh, no we didn't. I wish we did, though.
Every once in a while, some politician brings it up, but 37 hours is still the default.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 2d
Did you think to ask/wonder why it's exactly 1hr below 35?
AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2d
edgemaster72@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 2d
AI CEOs: How about a 0 day workweek (because we want to fire all you plebs)
brianpeiris@lemmy.ca · 8 pts · 2d
Bless uncle Bernie, but the US is in no state to even consider this. It has installed capitalism as its king.
rizzothesmall@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 2d
Absolutely. The AI will only work 4 days a week after everyone is laid off.
hark@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 1d
We should've had a four-day workweek decades ago. Computers have already automated so much without LLMs.
LovelyMover@lemmy.zip · 7 pts · 1d
AT THE VERY LEAST! All its doing is impoverishing the majority & threatening mankind right now.
DarkFuture@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 1d
The whole point of advancing technology is to make our lives easier. Why are we still working this hard after a century (or more) of extreme technological advancement?
Tenderizer@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 16h
The point is to make our lives better, not easier.
Is that the same thing? Maybe, maybe not.
Either way AI is doing neither right now.
Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 2d
Understatement of the fucking century
Bwaz@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2d
Oh, a 4 day work week will come, with 4 hours of work per day (after an hour commute), to avoid paying you benefits. You'll need 2 or three of those jobs to pay rent along with your roommates.
SnarkoPolo@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2d
"Should," yes.
"Will," not in Christian America, sunny Jim.
Sam_Bass@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2d
sanders has finally lost it if ai comes for workers, those workers wont even have a week to work with
Doomsider@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1d
You all get a four day work week!
Did I mention there are no more jobs?
GreenKnight23@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1d
and increased taxes for the companies that replace workers with AI.
jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works · -2 pts · 1d
why not increase taxes for companies that employ workers with multiple jobs?
GreenKnight23@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
why don't you go eat shit, AI supporting troll.
HubertManne@piefed.social · 4 pts · 2d
I mean if it can do it all it should be technically a zero day workweek but we know that is not true. Honestly there should always be humans in the loop.
village604@adultswim.fan · 2 pts · 1d
At that point people would be doing it because it's something they actually want to do, if we're assuming UBI comes with it.
But people actually like working (when their survival isn't dependent on it), so I don't think we'll ever reach the point where no humans are working. Even with UBI, you could still have paid jobs for non-essential spending.
HubertManne@piefed.social · 1 pts · 1d
if it does not come with a paycheck its not work to me. like people say work on your garden but its just enjoyable activity at that point.
echodot@feddit.uk · 4 pts · 2d
I honestly probably only actually do three days worth of actual productive work a week, the other two days are spent in meetings which are necessary because management like to change procedures on a bi monthly basis, just to show everyone how in charge they are.
mannycalavera@feddit.uk · 4 pts · 1d
Wait.. how long is your work week in the US?
Breezy@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 1d
8 days
18107@aussie.zone · 4 pts · 1d
You're lucky. I've been working 15 days a week, uphill both ways in the snow.
Evil_Incarnate@sopuli.xyz · 3 pts · 1d
And I pay them for the opportunity.
ilinamorato@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
I ain't got nothing but love, babe.
Mrkawfee@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
I've been waiting for a four day week since the spinning jenny.
anarchy79@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
How about a no day workweek?
YOLO, bitches.
Shanmugha@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2d
*must
*2-day
jaykrown@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 23h
The whole "four-day workweek" thing, just say "higher pay" because what you're really asking for is that people get paid more per hour worked, such that they get paid the same, and only work four days instead of five. Why do you have to make it so complicated? PAY PEOPLE THEIR FAIR SHARE.
abc@suppo.fi · 3 pts · 1d
As Lenin said, "ŠŃŠ»Šø ŠŗŃŠ¾ Š½Šµ Ń Š¾ŃŠµŃ ŃŃŃŠ“ŠøŃŃŃŃ, ŃŠ¾Ń Šø Š½Šµ ŠµŃŃ", which roughly translated means "celui qui ne veut pas travailler n'a pas le droit de manger".
No, but seriously I think it should bring a zero-day workweek for almost everybody, eventually. Which would be a huge problem if it happens fast because not many of us know what to do with that much free time.
SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
You'd only get paid for 4 days though.
MBech@feddit.dk · 2 pts · 1d
But if everyone gets paid for 4 days, does it really matter? I haven't heard a lot of stories about people becoming homeless and starving due to going from 45 hours/week to 37 in the past.
SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 23h
I know people who have side gigs or two jobs to make ends meet.
MBech@feddit.dk · 1 pts · 23h
You're completely right. In fact, maybe we should force them to work 50 hour weeks on both jobs. That would be much better for their situation.
SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 14h
I was saying people have to do that to survive. I didn't say it was a good thing.
UnrepententProcrastinator@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 2d
I don't know if that's a good quid pro quo. At least in Canada the labor is plenty busy and would work weekends for the overtime. The issue is pay and labor conditions at the lowest echelons. That includes kids coming out of universities. They have to lower their expectations because their lack of experience makes them comparable to an AI assistant. But how are they suppose to become experts?
RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 23h
Coming for workers in the negative sense.
Less pay, less control, longer hours, less benefits. Itās going to steal the good and amplify the bad.
sharps89@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 2d
Fuck yeah #feelthebern
Tim_Bisley@piefed.social · 2 pts · 1d
Elect reps that support all these measure Sanders is always creating.
atrielienz@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2d
I already work a 4 day work week. 4/10's. I get up at 3 am. I fight traffic on the way home which doubles or triples my commute time home. It's not all it's cracked up to be.
I think 4/10's is already doable in a lot of industries but I question why they expect it to continue to be a 40 hour work week, or expect us to be paid more money for less hours. Nothing has trended that way in the entire time I've been alive. Feels like a pipedream.
MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2d
I feel ya. I'm on Mon-Thr. Commute home at the height of rush hour. I stay in the city on Thursday nights and enjoy a couple of spots after shift.
adarza@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 1d
would you rather work 5x8 and fight traffic both ways instead of one?
atrielienz@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
I've done that to for a similar job and honestly there's not much difference as far as rest or relaxation is concerned. At best I can say having the extra week day for appointments is one of the few up sides of 4/10's.
The extra time per week spent in traffic for a shorter day has its down sides too and they equal out in my experience.
Less frustration in traffic, more frustration from not having the time to come to a more natural stopping point or finish bigger projects. It's a crapshoot either way.
This is why I mentioned shorter work weeks with less hours and the same pay. That might have more pros than cons.
I've worked 4/10's, 9/80's, 5/10's, 5/8''s and even 6/12's. That's not even counting the military. 9/80's was sort of better in a way especially in conjunction with federal holidays, but even then traffic was a nightmare. Public transit would have been even worse.
fodor@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 1d
Oh Bernie Bernie Bernie. AI is 95% vaporware. Stop fretting about the shit they claim they'll produce but never will.
(Obviously changing technology requires some legal changes. Yes yes. But focus on the real shit that's already happened, not the bullshit they are promising.)
fuck_u_spez_in_particular@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
I can tell you're not working in IT...
It's astonishing how quickly it changed the field there...
And indeed it's quite a productivity tool since roughly half a year ago, not that it is fun, to use it all the time...
little_tuptup@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 1d
eh, i work in IT. the amount AI contributes is astounding. unfortunately i know one university having their compsci students now doing their projects using AI.
it definitely is an efficiency gain
fuck_u_spez_in_particular@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
How to promote brain atrophy...
But I guess it's difficult for Universities to adjust, indeed...
And yes, I agree, I write less and less manual code, but it's not fun. Endless context switching is really not promoting flow states, that I had when I programmed for ours... Which I consider what made it fun in the first place.
majster@lemmy.zip · 0 pts · 1d
Me too. But do you think people outside of IT will get the same boost? I think that 90% of IT work would be totally redundant if people knew a little of Python, all we do is guardrails upon guardrails. I have a suspicion that AI constrained enough for your average office worker to understand what its doing is not going to be terribly productive.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · -2 pts · 2d
I appreciate that he's trying, but Bernie is so out of his depth when it comes to AI.
biggeoff@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 2d
I think his point is valid. He's pointing out the delusion of the "benefit" of AI and driving home that if it's real a 4day week should be the least
Obviously it's all a bunch of horseradish, but that's not his burden of proof
UnequalExchange@lemmy.world · -6 pts · 23h
....liberal zionist loool. All liberals are the same.
(also 32 hours is STILL too long. Fuck off)