Machines might not take your job. But they could make it worse
The article examines how machines and AI affect work, suggesting they may reduce job meaningfulness. A CrowdStrike software update caused outages, highlighting technology's role in employee dependency and job satisfaction.
Read original article
The article discusses the impact of machines and artificial intelligence (AI) on the nature of work, suggesting that while they may not directly eliminate jobs, they could diminish the meaningfulness of work. A recent incident involving a software update by CrowdStrike led to widespread computer outages, highlighting the reliance of white-collar workers on technology. Many employees felt helpless when unable to access their systems, contrasting with IT professionals who found their roles to be both stressful and meaningful as they assisted those affected. This scenario illustrates how technology can create a dependency that may undermine job satisfaction and the sense of purpose in work. The article implies that as machines become more integrated into the workplace, the dynamics of work may shift, potentially leading to a less fulfilling work experience for many. The discussion reflects broader concerns about the evolving relationship between humans and technology in professional settings.
Related
AI can't fix what automation already broke
Generative AI aids call center workers by detecting distress and providing calming family videos. Criticism arises on AI as a band-aid solution for automation-induced stress, questioning its effectiveness and broader implications.
The Triumph of Counting and Scripting
The article explores how data analytics and standardization are reshaping connective labor jobs in the US, impacting professions like teaching and therapy. It warns of threats to creativity and human connections, advocating for safeguarding feeling jobs.
OpenAI CTO says AI should displace some creative jobs that shouldn't exist
OpenAI's Mira Murati stirred controversy by suggesting AI will replace creative jobs. Critics find her remarks insensitive and lacking clarity on AI's impact, sparking a debate on job automation's implications.
Computers are an inherently oppressive technology (2022)
Machines, especially computers, are portrayed as inherently oppressive due to their ruthless nature. Childhood experiences and examples like Juicero showcase how machine-driven ruthlessness can lead to absurd outcomes, emphasizing the importance of ethical technology design.
All the existential risk, none of the economic impact. That's a shitty trade
Despite high expectations, AI advancements have not significantly impacted productivity or profits. Concerns about creating highly intelligent entities pose potential existential threats, urging careful monitoring and management of AI implications.
13 commentsThe shareholder class sees no distinction between the two. This is a good reminder not to make your labor your identity and that technology implemented in the workplace is not for the benefit of the worker, but for the benefit of the owners. It doesn't matter if I toil with 1990's technology or 2020's technology, I call it quits at 5pm regardless.
In my personal life I get to choose (for the most part) the amount of technology that I interface with. The only computer in my car controls the spark plugs and fuel injectors. My bicycle shifts with friction. My stove/range only has valves and igniters. My TV is a monitor hooked up to a small PC. I'm not against technology, but I am ruthless in determining the exact amount that makes me happy.
https://ckrybus.com/static/papers/Bainbridge_1983_Automatica...
Because instead of moving us towards a <20 hours work week, it's "do more with less people" instead.
https://marshallbrain.com/manna1
where the AI do not interface with robots or elaborate contrivances... they become puppetmasters to humans. Much cheaper to do the actual work in meatspace!
This is why I strongly advocate for open source to replace the Big Tech closed server farms, the learned helplessness that people have when they give their entire audience over to Twitter and hope they dont get deplatformed etc.
It is why I work on https://github.com/Qbix/Platform
And why I started https://engageusers.ai/ecosystem.pdf
They already did. See Microsoft.
Regular Economist nonsense.
Related
AI can't fix what automation already broke
Generative AI aids call center workers by detecting distress and providing calming family videos. Criticism arises on AI as a band-aid solution for automation-induced stress, questioning its effectiveness and broader implications.
The Triumph of Counting and Scripting
The article explores how data analytics and standardization are reshaping connective labor jobs in the US, impacting professions like teaching and therapy. It warns of threats to creativity and human connections, advocating for safeguarding feeling jobs.
OpenAI CTO says AI should displace some creative jobs that shouldn't exist
OpenAI's Mira Murati stirred controversy by suggesting AI will replace creative jobs. Critics find her remarks insensitive and lacking clarity on AI's impact, sparking a debate on job automation's implications.
Computers are an inherently oppressive technology (2022)
Machines, especially computers, are portrayed as inherently oppressive due to their ruthless nature. Childhood experiences and examples like Juicero showcase how machine-driven ruthlessness can lead to absurd outcomes, emphasizing the importance of ethical technology design.
All the existential risk, none of the economic impact. That's a shitty trade
Despite high expectations, AI advancements have not significantly impacted productivity or profits. Concerns about creating highly intelligent entities pose potential existential threats, urging careful monitoring and management of AI implications.