this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2024
4 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59651 readers
2646 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 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 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 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months 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 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months 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 0 points 5 months 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 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] JamesFire@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

no, in response to human beings needing rest. the need for work hours was reduced drastically lowered 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 0 points 5 months 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 -1 points 5 months ago

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

[–] nomous@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] JamesFire@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] nomous@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months 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 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months 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.

[–] mriormro@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months 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 0 points 5 months 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 0 points 5 months ago

no, they deserve it regardless.