The author's https://mlsu.io/posts/llm/cheats/ is also pretty good.
Thanks for sharing. Well worth the read. They’re a good writer
Can we have the day off?
261–270 of 823 posts
Re: Can we have the day off?
#262Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reality is that most people are paid for their time, not for their output. I think most contracts for salaried employees are along the lines of "work n hours a week". If you want to get paid for output, you can't be a salaried employee.
Yes but you are missing the point: our time can now make the company way more money. Can’t we demand a piece of this?
> Can’t we demand a piece of this?
If your company is publicly traded, you can buy its stock.
Re: Can we have the day off?
#263Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. They should give you 40x your current pay. The AI made you 10x more productive, and you worked four days, so you generated 40x the economic output. As such, you should get 40x in pay. At this point, you're doing the company a favor by taking a day off as otherwise they wouldn't be able to afford you.
Sounds like the AI should get 36x the current pay. It's not as if the employee is bringing that to the table.
Who said AI doesn't request compensation? We are not sure yet. One day when GPT10.0 released, he might request dollars to people.
Re: Can we have the day off?
#264[deleted]
Re: Can we have the day off?
#265Whenever a new way is found to improve efficiency, choices have to be made about how to distribute the new surplus. Choices are made by people who have power and imposed upon people who don't. The people with power under current systems don't care about the people who do the work. They care about getting rich. So if there's an efficiency gain to be had, all of that new efficiency is going to be put towards increasing…
Unless one choses to bargain. Perhaps collectively.
[deleted]
Re: Can we have the day off?
#266Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It’s not that technology fundamentally is about putting people out of work. The problem is, it has always been that way - and not just in the US. The introduction of any kind of new technology or other way of disproportionately improving corporate bottom lines has always led to job losses, the key thing is what governments do in response to it. The Industrial Revolution for example led to widespread devastation, th…
All of those things also resulted in the massive increase in the quality of life for everyone. Nobody will suggest we ban cars and go back to horse and buggies so cowboys can have jobs.
Honestly if we went back to horses but had good public transportation as well (buses, trains, airports) it could be pretty sweet
I know most people don’t agree with that but it seems nice to me
Re: Can we have the day off?
#267Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a pejorative shorthand for "Rationalist".
Why is "rationalist" suddenly a pejorative? I am definitely out of the loop. I assume it is used pejoratively only by self-labelled idiots?
I am not in the loop either. From what i've gleaned, it's more a rejection of the specific internet-based community that embraced such ideas in the early 2000's. But I can't speak on behalf of their beliefs or those of their detractors. Was just trying to help out on the term itself.
Re: Can we have the day off?
#268I've worked 3x12, 4x10, and 5x8, without AI. I think I was most productive on the 3x12 schedule. On the days I worked, I was able to lock in and get a lot done, and had a significant amount of time outside of the normal working hours, which were free from meetings and distractions. During those 3 days all I really did was work and sleep. On the 4 days off I was able to rest and recover and actually have a life. It al…
> During those 3 days all I really did was work and sleep. This is why 3x12 is not workable for average families. If you have kids and want to see them, 3x12 only works if you start really really early, then get to bed early when the kids do too. I enjoyed 4x10 when I did it, but there were some real problems with some employees trying to adapt. Anecdotally we were seeing a lot of people who would barely work until t…
IME most people don't have more than 4 (maybe 5) hours of effective heavy cognitive / creative energy in a given day. Of course YMMV, and it's common to have periods of sustained output when deeply committed to and energized by something, but over the long haul, week in, week out, splitting the workday into roughly 8h sleep, 8h work, 8h everything else, with 2/7 days off plus many holidays and some weeks of paid vacation seems like a reasonable default to me -- for the traditional salaried role. If your preferences deviate much from that baseline, the entrepreneurial / consulting / fractional approach would probably be better aligned.
Re: Can we have the day off?
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's why it has to be collective. That's why OP mentioned saying it in an all hands. That's why there's always discussion of tech worker unions despite our high pay. Any one of us try to push too hard on this sort of thing on our own and they'll "just find someone else" who would happily take our place.
[flagged]
Classic American politics right there:
Person 1: "We need class solidarity against the billionaires."
Person 2: "No, it's the immigrants' fault."
Re: Can we have the day off?
#270My dad was a stock broker in the late 1970s and remembers when most of trading was 100% manual and firms actually had "runners" who would take stock certificates back and forth between trading firms. He has this great quote about when computers came out: "We were told 'computers will save you so much time on work tasks that you won't even know what to do with your free time'. I spent the next 30 years working the sam…
> He has this great quote about when computers came out: "We were told 'computers will save you so much time on work tasks that you won't even know what to do with your free time'. I spent the next 30 years working the same number of hours. "
From about one hundred years ago:
> Now it is true that the needs of human beings may seem to be insatiable. But they fall into two classes --those needs which are absolute in the sense that we feel them whatever the situation of our fellow human beings may be, and those which are relative in the sense that we feel them only if their satisfaction lifts us above, makes us feel superior to, our fellows. Needs of the second class, those which satisfy the desire for superiority, may indeed be insatiable; for the higher the general level, the higher still are they. But this is not so true of the absolute needs-a point may soon be reached, much sooner perhaps than we are all of us aware of, when these needs are satisfied in the sense that we prefer to devote our further energies to non-economic purposes.
[…]
> For many ages to come the old Adam will be so strong in us that everybody will need to do some work if he is to be contented. We shall do more things for ourselves than is usual with the rich to-day, only too glad to have small duties and tasks and routines. But beyond this, we shall endeavour to spread the bread thin on the butter-to make what work there is still to be done to be as widely shared as possible. Three-hour shifts or a fifteen-hour week may put off the problem for a great while. For three hours a day is quite enough to satisfy the old Adam in most of us!
* John Maynard Keynes, "Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren" (1930)
* http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf
An essay putting forward / hypothesizing four reasons on why the above did not happen (We haven't spread the wealth around enough; People actually love working; There's no limit to human desires; Leisure is expensive):
* https://www.vox.com/2014/11/20/7254877/keynes-work-leisure