> Remember when AI was going to take away our jobs and leave humans with nothing to do? So far, that doesn’t seem to be happening. Researchers from ActivTrak analyzed the digital activity of more than 10,000 workers and found that when people adopted AI, their work life became more intense, not less. The time that these early adopters spent on email, messaging, and chat apps more than doubled. Their use of business software rose by 94 percent.
Yeah, that's cause they get paid per hour. Improvements to technology just mean they get squeezed harder.
I'm self employed and I'm getting way more done with way less effort. I can just take it easy now.
Offtopic: When you're self-employed, every corporate talk and especially open position descriptions cringes you to the other side of the universe. I just discovered a whole new level: employee metrics.
Partime jobs are for people which doesn't have time for fulltime jobs (like students), or people with schedule not suitable for fulltime job (like single mothers), or elderly with low pensions.
All these jobs are for unqualified (minimum training max.) workforce, with low pay and big turnaround of workforce.
Literally to supplement fulltime employees for peak period of day (like waitresses at night).
Nothing to support a normal life (decent living, decent car, some vacations).
Noone capable of working qualified fulltime job would downgrade their living standards to "bare minimum" of people having only partime jobs.
People living in mamma hotel bubble have hard time understanding how all their bullshit is easily debunked by people living outside that bubble.
Feels like there’s a lot of projection going on there.
I’ve worked with a lot of professionals over the years who chose to work part time (and have done myself too). Various reasons, but mostly it boiled down to valuing their time and wellbeing more than grinding full time.
The thing about “living standards” is, like many standards they change depending on your priorities.
I had the same problem long before AI. At university we'd often be presented with some historical problem in computer science. Immediately the professor would go to the next slide, and spoil the solution! So I made a habit of covering my eyes and ears, so I could actually think about it myself.
"If I’m trying to understand child development, I ask it to imagine a debate between Jean Piaget and Erik Erikson. What would these two great psychologists say to each other about the problem I’m wrestling with?"
What the actual fuck. Even David Brooks suffers from AI psychosis.
He seriously believes these machines are thinking and could imagine a debate between two dead people. They cannot.
You cannot extrapolate consciousness of dead or living people from the training data or what people wrote about them.
So whatever the AI hallucinates about these people, David Brooks is going to take that as his base to understand child development and is then probably applying it to real children.
You do understand how nuts David Brooks is? Right?
Why would anyone listen to someone about AI who doesn’t understand how the technology works and where its limitations are?
You’d suspect someone teaching at Yale would notice that by himself, but nope. He goes on and on and probably used the same approach to produce this writing.
So like always, the people who get shafted the hardest are the chronically ill, the fatigued, the ADHD, or even the depressed.
Executive function has always been the beginning and the end of efficacy and capability.
> Remember when AI was going to take away our jobs and leave humans with nothing to do? So far, that doesn’t seem to be happening. Researchers from ActivTrak analyzed the digital activity of more than 10,000 workers and found that when people adopted AI, their work life became more intense, not less. The time that these early adopters spent on email, messaging, and chat apps more than doubled. Their use of business software rose by 94 percent.
Yeah, that's cause they get paid per hour. Improvements to technology just mean they get squeezed harder.
I'm self employed and I'm getting way more done with way less effort. I can just take it easy now.
Offtopic: When you're self-employed, every corporate talk and especially open position descriptions cringes you to the other side of the universe. I just discovered a whole new level: employee metrics.
I am salaried and I don't use AI and i still work less than 20hr/week for fixed pay.
Shrink that denominator, baby!
Thank you for daily dose of things which didn't happen brought to us by mama hotel pyjama gansgter.
But you are correct. Working 0 hours/week is less than 20 hours/week.
You’re credulous about the concept of someone working part time?
Partime jobs are for people which doesn't have time for fulltime jobs (like students), or people with schedule not suitable for fulltime job (like single mothers), or elderly with low pensions.
All these jobs are for unqualified (minimum training max.) workforce, with low pay and big turnaround of workforce. Literally to supplement fulltime employees for peak period of day (like waitresses at night).
Nothing to support a normal life (decent living, decent car, some vacations). Noone capable of working qualified fulltime job would downgrade their living standards to "bare minimum" of people having only partime jobs.
People living in mamma hotel bubble have hard time understanding how all their bullshit is easily debunked by people living outside that bubble.
Nothing to support
Feels like there’s a lot of projection going on there.
I’ve worked with a lot of professionals over the years who chose to work part time (and have done myself too). Various reasons, but mostly it boiled down to valuing their time and wellbeing more than grinding full time.
The thing about “living standards” is, like many standards they change depending on your priorities.
Please give us list of the imaginary professions you and all your imaginary friends worked as parttime.
Lets have a laugh.
I had the same problem long before AI. At university we'd often be presented with some historical problem in computer science. Immediately the professor would go to the next slide, and spoil the solution! So I made a habit of covering my eyes and ears, so I could actually think about it myself.
https://archive.is/fgbSP
He writes:
"If I’m trying to understand child development, I ask it to imagine a debate between Jean Piaget and Erik Erikson. What would these two great psychologists say to each other about the problem I’m wrestling with?"
What the actual fuck. Even David Brooks suffers from AI psychosis.
He seriously believes these machines are thinking and could imagine a debate between two dead people. They cannot.
You cannot extrapolate consciousness of dead or living people from the training data or what people wrote about them.
So whatever the AI hallucinates about these people, David Brooks is going to take that as his base to understand child development and is then probably applying it to real children.
You do understand how nuts David Brooks is? Right?
Why would anyone listen to someone about AI who doesn’t understand how the technology works and where its limitations are?
You’d suspect someone teaching at Yale would notice that by himself, but nope. He goes on and on and probably used the same approach to produce this writing.
[dead]