I noticed almost everybody here agrees that all AI is bad, and anything produced by AI is slop. and refuse to use any software made in part or in whole with AI or help of AI? Please mention your background and usage of AI with your answer.
I also posted it here.
And then what happened? Double income couples have to squeeze in time for laundry in the weekend.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say. You pro washboard and bucket? Because no person who has actually ever used one is.
What I understood: Whenever we get a new tech, it makes our life easier (fact) but then the society expects more from us because “hey! now your life is easier, you have the time no?”.
edit: I had more to say I apparently.
in the scope of washbasin:
Women used to do back breaking job for 2 hours while talking to their neighbors and friends by a river/well.
Now they don’t have to do back breaking job, instead they have to do comfortable but soul crushing jobs with co-workers they cannot naturally (professionalism) mingle with.
I would replace “society” with “capitalists”
I feel like you are cutting society too much slack.
Yes, capitalists set the tone, but people in our immediate surroundings (neighbors, parents, schools) are the ones who enforce the rules.
20 years ago: You got an email? Well… you’ll see it when you open your personal/work computer.
Now: You got an email? Don’t you have a mobile phone? Every second you miss is an insult, especially if they saw you with your phone in your hand once while talking to them (you look at your phone AAAALLL THE TIME no???)
They’re saying the productivity gains didn’t go to the workers. Every benefit you got at home was yet another excuse for C-suits to not pass profit gains onto the workers, because, “you’re life is getting easier anyways, you greedy slob!”.
Man, it’s like my boomer parents.
“We have all this technology now, maybe we can improve our lives a bit”
“Oh, you’re saying we should go back to the dark ages!?”
Can’t argue with these people.
I literally told you I don’t even understand what your criticism about washing machines is. You’re being extremely vague here.
I just told you that doing laundry went from something that used to take the better half of a day to something that was done in few hours and your response was that now double income couples have to squeeze in time for laundry in the weekeds.
Like what the fuck are you even saying? Yes people still have to do their laundry even after the invention of washing machine. It’s only that it now takes less than third of the time of what it used to.
Yes, you are correct about the washing machine. Now broaden your scope and think about how that washing machine fits into the bigger picture. Like it’s one brick in a house. The brick might be upgraded, it’s a smaller, tougher brick, maybe even cheaper, but now you need two bricks to make the same house.
There are many inventions that have greatly improved working conditions for people, the washing machine is a great example. That’s not what the original commenter is criticizing. They’re criticizing the larger structure, the house, not the brick.
If there weren’t the washing machine (as well as cheap wrinkle free clothes - eliminating the iron and board and sewing), the microwave, the refrigerator for frozen foods, digital spreadsheets for doing the bills, and so on, the economy would naturally adjust to make affordable a one person income household.
We have all these advancements to save time and effort but the system has likewise adapted, requiring you to spend that extra time now at a job in order to live.
That’s what the original comment was criticizing, this sleight of hand of promises, that sells us one thing but delivers only more work.
Its difficult to put more clearly than he already did, so I’ll come at it from a different angle, see if that’s any better.
You’re at a factory on a machine that takes 10 people to operate it. You all get minimum wage. A new machine comes out that only takes 5 people to work it for the same output. That should be great, but for the worker it sucks. 5 people now have jobs and 5 people are unemployed. The people still working are still on minimum wage.
The salaries that are “saved” go mostly in the bosses pockets. Sure some goes to the manufacturer of the better machine, and some goes on taxes, but mostly it’s value that we, the common man, has lost.
If it works out like they’re hoping, AI will do this at a scale we’ve never encountered before.
Please read the full context. What you just said has nothing to do with the washing machine example I provided that Fleppen was seemingly disagreeing with.
This isn’t a loom that helps workers produce fabric faster but their boss takes all the profits. It’s a piece of technology that people use in their home on their free time to perform a task in a fraction of the time it used to take before washing machines. It’s a massive time saver and that seems a rather uncontroversial claim to me so I have no clue what they’re actually taking issue with.
To your point: I don’t disagree. In the best case scenario AI will take everyone’s job. That is not the issue as most people only work for money anyway. The issue is what follows from that: a handful of people making all the profits while the rest get nothing. The solution to this is however not that we all become luddites but that we figure out a way to spread that wealth to everyone fairly.
The time that has been saved by the washing machine meant more time to join the workforce meaning 2 income households can now provide the same level of value as 1 income households used to. Except they cant. Also its more than simply the washing machine.
The point was that the extra time has not been given to us, but allowed to be taken by the rich.
Edit : yes time has been saved. Its not actually properly benefitted us in the way you’d imagine though.