this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2024
1608 points (98.6% liked)

Technology

55744 readers
2747 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Sweetpeaches69@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Because they will only be used my corporations to replace workers, furthering class divide, ultimately leading to a collapse in countries and economies. Jobs will be taken, and there will be no resources for the jobless. The future is darker than bleak should LLMs and AI be allowed to be used indeterminately by corporations.

[–] JamesFire@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

We should use them to replace workers, letting everyone work less and have more time to do what they want.

We shouldn't let corporations use them to replace workers, because workers won't see any of the benefits.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

that won't happen. technological advancement doesn't allow you to work less, it allowa you to work less for the same output. so you work the same hours but the expected output changes, and your productivity goes up while your wages stay the same.

[–] JamesFire@lemmy.world -4 points 1 month ago (3 children)

technological advancement doesn’t allow you to work less,

It literally has (When forced by unions). How do you think we got the 40-hr workweek?

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] JamesFire@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

In response to better technology that reduced the need for work hours.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

no, in response to human beings needing rest. the need for work hours was drastically reduced since, but nothing changed. corporations don't care, they just want you to work until you die, no matter how much you contribute none of them is gonna say "you know what, that's enough, maybe you should work less". wage theft keeps getting worse.

[–] JamesFire@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yes, but that's not because technology doesn't reduce the need for working hours, which is what I argued against.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

no? no one argued tech doesn't reduce the need for working hours. read it again.

[–] mriormro@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That wasn't technology. It was the literal spilling of blood of workers and organizers fighting and dying for those rights.

[–] JamesFire@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

And you think they just did it because?

They obviously thought they deserved it, because... technology reduced the need for work hours, perhaps?

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

no, they deserve it regardless.

[–] JamesFire@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Which has nothing to do with whether technology reduces the need for working hours, which is what I was arguing.

[–] nomous@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

How do you think we got the 40hr work week?

[–] JamesFire@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Unions fought for it after seeing the obvious effects of better technology reducing the need for work hours.

[–] nomous@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Stop after your first 4 words and you'd be correct but all your other words are just your imagination and you trying to rationalize what you've already said.

[–] JamesFire@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Obviously I'm trying to rationalize what I already said, that's how an argument works.

I am arguing that better technology reduces the need for working hours.

That's it.

[–] Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

furthering class divide, ultimately leading to a collapse in countries and economies

Might be the cynic in me but I don't think that would be the worst outcome. Maybe it will finally be the straw that breaks the camel's back for people to realize that being a highly replaceable worker drone wage slave isn't really going anywhere for everyone except the top-0.001%.