As a Technical Writer, I have seen job postings for AI Writers/Prompters at around half the going salary for what a full-time Tech Writer would earn. At the same time, there's an unspoken rule in tech jobs that if you don't use AI, you'll be fired. Whatever cost savings companies are getting from AI, it'-s going to the executive and VP bonuses, not to the employees.
this is happening in New Zealand, you need to look at what's going on here you'd have a field day, our country is being run into the ground d by a CEO prime Minister please look into it.
Good perspective, one that should be broadly discussed, debated and made aware. Chinese court’s decision is a very humane one; as after all, we created the rules and the underlying intent really matters.
Thanks for this article (found it through YouTube). I would be interested in follow ups if the case develops further.
The unspoken rule of most business under capitalism is that profit must grow over some defined period. Under the assumption that constant growth is achievable, the adoption of AI and the resulting cost reduction (worker's salary in this case) is precisely "inevitable".
Without full context it's hard to understand whether the court ruling undermines any of the assumptions of operating a business under capitalism and if the company can appeal as a result. A rare win for workers, but I fear it'll be shortlived.
The Hangzhou ruling is interesting precisely because of what it required the court to do.
It had to establish that AI adoption is a choice, not a weather event. That sounds obvious until you realize most corporate and legal language around AI is specifically engineered to avoid that conclusion.
"Changing business conditions." "Evolving operational needs." "Restructuring for the future."
The language is doing work. It converts a decision into a circumstance. And once it's a circumstance, nobody is accountable for it.
The ruling punctured that. Whether it holds as precedent is a different question. But the framing it rejected is the same framing being used in every US earnings call right now.
Sharing the benefits seems to be a reasonable long term thing to do. The net gain can be allocated to increases in worker benefit, training, research, and profit margin while reducing work hours. The operative word is "Sharing". Both management and workers will embrace AI technology.
This is why corporations are trying to make us believe AI is somehow a real "person" with intelligence and consciousness. That is working very well for them with Citizens United making artificial coporate "persons". They will fight any sort of court ruling like this one. Because that would have a domino effect on the power they have accumulated in government as C.U. persons.
They have gained more power, but without their legal business responsiblilities, by having equal human rights.
New technology increases productivity, which can either benefit workers and society or harm them. China uses AI to make products, while the U.S. uses it to make profits. China is implementing AI to increase production, with robots in manufacturing, processing health care databases, automated retail stores, autonomous farm vehicles. It is redirecting educated youth who face displacement by AI data analysis toward high-skill, well paid mental/manual labor. The U.S. is replacing entry level college jobs with AI, using AI to speed-up work, dehumanizing workers by making them adjuncts of AI, depriving students of education in critical thinking, forcing massive data centers on communities, stealing the work of writers and artists to build AI databanks. AI has great possibilities to empower people and democratize society by raising living standards, as a tool for writing, graphics, and problem solving, and to perform mundane and dangerous jobs, freeing workers to be creative and have more leisure time. Just not in the U.S.
These businesses must sell a product or service so maybe it will fall to their customers to buy or not buy accordingly. Supporting the business that continues to employ humans not AI when possible.
Great points.
As a Technical Writer, I have seen job postings for AI Writers/Prompters at around half the going salary for what a full-time Tech Writer would earn. At the same time, there's an unspoken rule in tech jobs that if you don't use AI, you'll be fired. Whatever cost savings companies are getting from AI, it'-s going to the executive and VP bonuses, not to the employees.
we have a redistribution issue.
to say the least!
Well said
this is happening in New Zealand, you need to look at what's going on here you'd have a field day, our country is being run into the ground d by a CEO prime Minister please look into it.
I will pay attention.
Good perspective, one that should be broadly discussed, debated and made aware. Chinese court’s decision is a very humane one; as after all, we created the rules and the underlying intent really matters.
Thanks for this article (found it through YouTube). I would be interested in follow ups if the case develops further.
The unspoken rule of most business under capitalism is that profit must grow over some defined period. Under the assumption that constant growth is achievable, the adoption of AI and the resulting cost reduction (worker's salary in this case) is precisely "inevitable".
Without full context it's hard to understand whether the court ruling undermines any of the assumptions of operating a business under capitalism and if the company can appeal as a result. A rare win for workers, but I fear it'll be shortlived.
thank you Gike, I will pay attention to this one. So far this is what I got right now.
The Hangzhou ruling is interesting precisely because of what it required the court to do.
It had to establish that AI adoption is a choice, not a weather event. That sounds obvious until you realize most corporate and legal language around AI is specifically engineered to avoid that conclusion.
"Changing business conditions." "Evolving operational needs." "Restructuring for the future."
The language is doing work. It converts a decision into a circumstance. And once it's a circumstance, nobody is accountable for it.
The ruling punctured that. Whether it holds as precedent is a different question. But the framing it rejected is the same framing being used in every US earnings call right now.
You’ve made an important distinction, one that would likely also be made by employee-owned-and-operated companies.
Sharing the benefits seems to be a reasonable long term thing to do. The net gain can be allocated to increases in worker benefit, training, research, and profit margin while reducing work hours. The operative word is "Sharing". Both management and workers will embrace AI technology.
This is why corporations are trying to make us believe AI is somehow a real "person" with intelligence and consciousness. That is working very well for them with Citizens United making artificial coporate "persons". They will fight any sort of court ruling like this one. Because that would have a domino effect on the power they have accumulated in government as C.U. persons.
They have gained more power, but without their legal business responsiblilities, by having equal human rights.
Profit over people
New technology increases productivity, which can either benefit workers and society or harm them. China uses AI to make products, while the U.S. uses it to make profits. China is implementing AI to increase production, with robots in manufacturing, processing health care databases, automated retail stores, autonomous farm vehicles. It is redirecting educated youth who face displacement by AI data analysis toward high-skill, well paid mental/manual labor. The U.S. is replacing entry level college jobs with AI, using AI to speed-up work, dehumanizing workers by making them adjuncts of AI, depriving students of education in critical thinking, forcing massive data centers on communities, stealing the work of writers and artists to build AI databanks. AI has great possibilities to empower people and democratize society by raising living standards, as a tool for writing, graphics, and problem solving, and to perform mundane and dangerous jobs, freeing workers to be creative and have more leisure time. Just not in the U.S.
These businesses must sell a product or service so maybe it will fall to their customers to buy or not buy accordingly. Supporting the business that continues to employ humans not AI when possible.