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!
I work like a truck, so 4x4 would be appropriate.
I work like a piece of wood, so 2x4 is all I’m asking
And they’re really like 1.6x3.5
I work like a Dolly, 9 days a week 5 hours a day.
She would be so proud of you 🥹
Thank you, it was a long time since I shared this insightful graph. https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/
Does nobody think about the managers?
/s
Why not 3x 7 hour days if the productivity gains are that great‽
yeah other places like the netherlands already did 4 day weeks before AI. we can go further.
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
it’s kinda bringing a “0 hour work” week for a lot of people.
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 can’t understand context at all. “Force multiplier” doesn’t mean it’s multiplying good things. It can just as easily multiply nonsense.
Like any tool, the user plays a key role in the quality of the output.
Yeah but it’s also just kind of a shitty tool.
Thats a take, but if you pair that sentiment with what I just said it paints a funny picture.
Like if I went to the store and bought a cheap hammer and it breaks after a few swings it’s a shitty tool. No matter my expertise with said tool.
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.
“Sometimes produces bad output” isn’t the same thing as “shitty tool.”
Which just feeds back into what I’ve already said. Shall we go around again?
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.
You’re confused, those things are the outputs out late-stage capitalism.
“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 it’s useless.
Sure you might feel like your being more productive but that’s 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 it’s a chatbot?
- The cost of operating these machine learning systems is too high, and the benefit too low:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemmagreen/2026/07/02/ai-costs-more-than-the-people-it-replaced/
https://cybernews.com/ai-news/ai-token-human-salaries-automation-spending-tech-execs/
- The most productive thing the current generation of machine learning systems has done is fill the Internet with garbage:
https://www.pcworld.com/article/1971683/ai-is-filling-up-the-internet-with-garbage-spam-sites.html
https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/over-50-percent-internet-ai-slop
https://mashable.com/article/ai-generated-internet-era-already-here
- LLMs are real, AI is fake.
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.
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.
when a lot of its practical utility is in fairly mundane office and middle-management work, no?
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.
Oh, I think we both know the answer to that question.
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
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.
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). 🤯
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.
AI CEOs: How about a 0 day workweek (because we want to fire all you plebs)
4-day workweek and UBI, please.
A UBI would effectively enable a 4 day work week regardless.
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.
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.
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?
Bless uncle Bernie, but the US is in no state to even consider this. It has installed capitalism as its king.
AT THE VERY LEAST! All its doing is impoverishing the majority & threatening mankind right now.
I suspect many of us will be getting 7 day weekends whether we want it or not.
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
How does farming or the trades interest you?
Everyday, I wish that I had become an electrician.
Unfortunately, I can’t afford to go back to school.
What a stupid fucking statement. There’s not going to be any workers left.
fucking lol
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.
A full screen PowerPoint/Google Slides also keeps your machine awake.
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.
Understatement of the fucking century
“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.
Well, union busting prevents workers from banding coallitions and adding the unions. F-, blame Walmart and Amazon.
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?
How about a four day work week and no AI? I’m so done with this timeline.
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.
According to Bullshit Jobs it would be less than half the working hours if we just stopped doing those
