21–30 of 168 posts
I don't think the issue is necessarily the tool, but rather the execution. I think everybody can agree that improving efficiency is a good thing, and tools to track/improve it are a net benefit, but the way they approached it was abhorrent. But seriously, who approved posting that (before it was deleted)?
Every sweatshop like that has high turnover rates, and micromanaging bosses that... let's say make sure these rates don't fall.
If these bosses are the target audience, then I guess the ad is well made? Identify bad employees faster so you can hire better ones quicker, yada yada. I can imagine how this promise can make someone want to buy the software, so fair play for the ad creators, I guess?
I really hope this project fails though.
I don't think the issue is necessarily the tool, but rather the execution. I think everybody can agree that improving efficiency is a good thing, and tools to track/improve it are a net benefit, but the way they approached it was abhorrent. But seriously, who approved posting that (before it was deleted)?
> I think everybody can agree that improving efficiency is a good thing At what point does demanding top efficiency from a human every minute of every work shift cross the line into abuse? I would argue this tool is miles over that that line. Workplaces should server the workers too, not just the capital interests of the owners.
Instead it looks like the next abstract evolution of a whip.
Dang this was depressing and appropriate to read on HN I guess. In unrelated I saw a license plate with just “YC” today. I thought the article was gonna be the following joke: It’s a guys first night in jail. At 9pm one of the other inmates yells “51!” And all the other inmates laugh and laugh. A moment later another inmate yells “29!” And all the other inmates laugh and laugh. The new inmate asks the cellmate - what…
... and I'd heard the variation: Another inmate calls out "36!" which brings out raucous laughter. The new inmate asks why that one got such a great response, to be told "We haven't heard that one before!"
Consider nearly any professional sports team and the relative effort that athletes put in. There's very little disagreeing on objectives our outcomes (score/prevent points, win games) and incentives are directly tied to this (win more games, get more money). And yet when you listen to what some of the highest-performing athletes say, they'll readily admit they don't go 100% effort 100% of the time. In fact, that's of…
I know some people working in low-cost sweatshops, where human labour is cheaper than automation, everyone is told they can be replaced within days, and the few machines you may find are usually older than the employees (or better yet, contractors) operating them. Every sweatshop like that has high turnover rates, and micromanaging bosses that... let's say make sure these rates don't fall. If these bosses are the tar…
I know some people working in low-cost sweatshops, where human labour is cheaper than automation, everyone is told they can be replaced within days, and the few machines you may find are usually older than the employees (or better yet, contractors) operating them. Every sweatshop like that has high turnover rates, and micromanaging bosses that... let's say make sure these rates don't fall. If these bosses are the tar…
You gotta really wonder what they are going to teach you at the "AI Startup School" they keep advertising at the bottom of this site..
This is exactly why we need regulations that prohibit this. The upcoming EU regulations [0] seem to at least partially cover this, as employment is one of the high risk categories for AI systems. What that means in detail is still to be seen, but at least the groundwork is already there. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43152937