Hacker News Reader

Comment by gruez | Hacker News Reader

Okay but what does this mean in terms of actual policies? At least in the short term it doesn't seem like AI is going to replace workers wholesale. Chatgpt/copilot isn't going to make programmers obsolete, but it might make them do their work faster. In this context how do you "reap AI benefits in form of ‘lowering workweek'"? If chatgpt saved you 8 hours a week, do you take the friday off? What if your coworker would rather continue working 40 hours? What if you're a plumber or similar job that can't be automated for AI? Do you continue toiling 40 hours/week? Maybe you tax AI and redistribute the proceeds? How would you determine the value of AI? Where do you draw the line between AI and not AI but still labor saving (eg. some one's spreadsheet)?

View on HN

> Maybe you tax AI and redistribute the proceeds?

Yes, yes, yes!

The luddites were not antimachine. All they wanted was a piece of the progress for themselves. Imagine if, instead of throwing obsolete workers out on their asses we paid them a portion of the profits of their layoff.

How long would you keep paying them? Machines have never obsoleted workers. If we look at how many jobs have been replaced by machines and computers, you’d expect to see a hundred trillion unemployed people. But the reality is they haven’t put people out of work, only changed what we work on and how much stuff we have to consume.

It puts people out of work immediately and people need food and housing immediately. We can progress and take care of people who get hurt along the way. It is possible.

That’s what the welfare system is for. Trying to account for jobs displaced by automation is absurd and mostly impossible.

> Machines have never obsoleted workers

At one time, switchboard operator was the most common job for young women. Then, the automated switchboard was invented.

That would be UBI and I’m all for it but then 70% of people wouldn’t work. If you argue otherwise you know you’re wrong. What would be amazing is if we find a way to make society still function that way.

Seems like he just wants everyone to have a 32 hour work week. Don't think he suggested actually accounting for it. More of a "if we going to be even more productive, let's work less"

What if one person wants to continue working 40 hours so they can save more to go on a big holiday or retire sooner?

I just can’t see how this is meant to work. You already could work less now if you wanted to, but you’ll always have less things and less money than those who chose to work more.

> What if one person wants to continue working 40 hours so they can save more to go on a big holiday or retire sooner?

What if someone wants to work 60 hours to go on a big holiday or retire sooner?

> I just can’t see how this is meant to work. You already could work less now if you wanted to, but you’ll always have less things and less money than those who chose to work more.

How does it work today? The five day work week has not always been the norm and isn’t even the norm in all countries (e.g. Chinese 996 where you work from 9 AM to 9 PM 6 days a week).

> What if someone wants to work 60 hours to go on a big holiday or retire sooner?

They can, and sometimes do. Just like you could work a shorter week right now if you were ok with taking a pay cut.

My SO works 80% but gets paid for every hour of overtime. No one bats an eye, and she enjoys her life and works as hard as she wants.

You can already work 100 hrs of you want, then you can 10 big holidays. He didn't propose to illegalize overtime.

Correct.

Sentiment, not policy.

Until, of course, people start creating sentimental policies

> What if your coworker would rather continue working 40 hours?

That's called overtime

Reply on news.ycombinator.com