this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2024
306 points (98.7% liked)
Not The Onion
12540 readers
427 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
“AI won’t complain about work-life balance.”
Yeah well AI also won’t be a consumer, so in seeking to replace your workers, remember that you are also replacing your consumers. Sowing the seeds of your own destruction.
"but it's just my company! People will find OtHeR wOrK! So it's totally ok!"
Repeated at every company...
The future is going to suck big time :/
In my experience, it's often the other way around. They'll say that because everyone else is going to replace certain jobs with AI, they'll have to do it, too, to stay competitive. If they don't stay competitive, they might need to fire workers anyways.
In theory, I could imagine someone employing AI, while from a moral viewpoint supporting a ban of it. One problem is that such a ban would need to be universal for it to not put anyone at a competitive disadvantage, which we can't achieve with national laws.
Well, and the other problem is that most people who argument this way then get massive bonuses and also pay bonuses out to investors, so that completely undermines any potential for morals.
The famous race to the bottom \o