This is scary - how AI is now even writing the articles you read

[old man emu]

4 hours ago, octave said:

 

Sorry, not trying to derail your point but the story about NASA and pens/pencils turns out to be apocryphal. Fact or Fiction?: NASA Spent Millions to Develop a Pen that Would Write in Space, whereas the Soviet Cosmonauts Used a Pencil  

A good yarn always has to have a seed of believability,  and the way Yanks go about things makes us ready to believe anything crazy about them.

 

On inspection, one has to come to the conclusion that change is good. The problem is that the pace of change has picked up over the past 200 years that change does not align with life expectancy. We no longer live with the Seasons as we did in pre-industrial times, nor do we live so much by the factory whistle. It might be overwhelming those of us born last century, but the best we can do for our descendants' futures is to instil in them the willingness to seize change, but not to hang on slavishly to what the change was for.

[nomadpete]

A very significant issue that Jerry touched upon is the whole issue of wealth distribution in the face of reducing conventional wage earning employment.

 

As he mentioned, due to less and less available gainful employment resulting from automation and A.I.  there will come a time when some form of universal payment will have to be implemented, in order to prevent starvation of the masses.

 

Further, somehow, society must address the problem of maintaining mental health when we lose the social benefit that flows from employment.

 

As well as the population dealing with this massive shift, the whole economy will have to adapt to these changes.

 

There might not be enough Soma available to subdue the people.

[pmccarthy]

I had the article "Computerize and be damned" pinned to my office wall in 1973. Just found it through the power of Google. See page 51 onward.

 

https://worldradiohistory.com/AUSTRALIA/ETI-Australia/70s/ETI-1973-04.pdf

 

[octave]

Just a few assorted thoughts

44 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

As he mentioned, due to less and less available gainful employment resulting from automation and A.I.

I would argue that there is probably no less gainful employment and perhaps there may actually be more.  Less checkout operators but more automatic checkout machine designers, builders and software people.   It could be argued that these may be better quality jobs than stranding at a checkout serving  sometimes rude customers.

 

A huge proportion of the jobs available today had not been heard of when I left school.  

 

A point often made is that if we have a social wage and do not need to work or need to work fewer days that we will not know what to do with ourselves.   As someone who retired 18 months ago. I still don't have time to do all the things I want to.   The point is that we do need meaningful things to do but this shouldn't be confused with paid work.   

 

 

[spacesailor]

WHEN

Everything is made by robots! .

Humans will be redundant. 

MORE WARS ,.

TO CULL THE MULTITUDE.

AND

Keep the factory bosses rich.

Cannon fodder 

Always done that way. 

spacesailor

[onetrack]

One of the problems with a vastly increased level of AI, computerisation, and automation, is the fact that as individuals, we are getting used to less and less face-to-face contact and personal interaction than ever before.

This is not good for society as a whole, and it must lead to an increased lower mental well-being across the nations.

I might add, this opinion is from someone who is not really a "social" person, and who has spent large amounts of time working alone in remote places!

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, octave said:

As someone who retired 18 months ago. I still don't have time to do all the things I want to.

That's because you have been employed for years and years and didn't have the time to do what you would like. I'm the same. I wish I had a 9-to-5er so I could relax. Now I've got so many irons in the fire, there's no room for the coals.

[octave]

4 minutes ago, onetrack said:

One of the problems with a vastly increased level of AI, computerisation, and automation, is the fact that as individuals, we are getting used to less and less face-to-face contact and personal interaction than ever before.

I am not sure why this means less face to face interaction.  Jobs that aren't automated will still require interaction.  Apart from that more leisure time will allow opportunities for more social interaction.

[old man emu]

Just now, octave said:

Apart from that more leisure time will allow opportunities for more social interaction

People will need to be taught how to occupy themselves when they have access to all this "leisure time".  Chaucer introduced the saying, "Idleness is the root of mischief. in his Tale of Melibee' (c. 1386), but the idea has been around since some people got into positions where they did not have to suffer daily toil. I was speaking to a bloke the other day who told me that he was a recovering drug and alcohol addict. He said that what got him started, and what he sees amongst practising addicts is boredom. 

[octave]

7 minutes ago, old man emu said:

That's because you have been employed for years and years and didn't have the time to do what you would like. I'm the same. I wish I had a 9-to-5er so I could relax. Now I've got so many irons in the fire, there's no room for the coals.

I think that in the past the education system focused on preparing students for one career. Nowadays it is more a case of preparing students to be able to adapt to career changes. The future may require people to live fulfilling lives that do not revolve solely on paid paid activity 

[old man emu]

Just now, octave said:

The future may require people to live fulfilling lives that do not revolve solely on paid paid activity 

Volunteers say that what they do as volunteers for no pay are the most satisfying things they have done in their lives. However, being able to volunteer requires that your basic survival needs have been met - food, clothing, habitation and social interaction. Until your kids have left home, you are too concerned with meeting those needs to go volunteering, without ignoring one or more of them.

[Jerry_Atrick]

7 hours ago, nomadpete said:

No. I worked in this area of power generation, also in telcos.

 

Pre computerised (now slightly A.I.) power station control systems required large panels of instruments and many manual controls. And many subject matter experts with intimate knowledge of the machinery, to interpret and control stuff.

 

When I left a couple of years ago, there was a room filled with screens and two bored systems operators, who oversaw a entire power station. Staff numbers decimated, and mostly through natural attrition (early retirement). Very very little redeployment, and that mostly by a minority - usually younger ones motivated by large mortgages.

 

I consider myself one of the lucky few who adjusted to constant change. Been out of work many times due to tech changes. Happily got paid redundancy twice, which helped. But about half a dozen other times 'redeployment' saved me from losing my house. What they call redeployment mostly meant desperately struggling to snag a new job when one's skillset has suddenly become outdated. Accepting a drop in pay. Then expensive, time consuming retraining, and climbing the advancement ladder again.

 

Once I attended a redeployment session presented by a professional employment agency, at my employer's expense, and after all the positive spruiking, I learnt that the best I could hope for was intermittent project work, and periods of unemployment. Then when pressed, they said "Well between contracts, you'll need a holiday." Some of my colleagues got nice consultance work on Belgium, or notso nice work in UAE.

 

My examples only cover 'automation'. Back in 1968 we were promised to expect automation to bring retirement at 50, and the productivity to pay our med, education and pensions for all. The A.I. revolution has only just begun. Interesting times.

 

Summarising - your success story does not represent the majority of skilled workers who are steadily being displaced.

My story - of which there were many similar - was a while ago - early this century. And, of course, employment laws are different here to Aus.. But, yes, I take your point, there will be people who are left on the scrap-heap by the company with little real offer of redeployment - internal or assisted. 

 

However, we have to look across the economy for the total impact. In your case, were you lucky or did you engineer your own luck? Some people will reinvent themselves, and some won't or can't.. That is sadly a feature of modern day economies, and will continue. 

 

As an example, I took a look at Australia's unemployment rate. I have had to piece together multiple sources of Australia's unemployment rate since 1900.. It makes interesting reading. The 1901 - 2001 graph is on page 6, here: https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-03/round3.pdf

 

It shows an early high unemployment rate, with post WWII average of about 1% unemployment, but an average of around 5% unemployment. A 2001 - 2020 unemployment rate shows something similar, although it has probably been shy north of 5%: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/AUS/australia/unemployment-rate

 

So, overall, the unemployment rate hasn't changed much. The participation rate, which is the percentage of people able to work, participating in the workforce either as employed, part time employed, or seeking a job, has steadily risen over the last 25 years, which a sharp drop and then return in what would appear to be the early years of the pandemic: https://tradingeconomics.com/australia/labor-force-participation-rate#:~:text=Labor Force Participation Rate in Australia averaged 63.47 percent from,percent in April of 1983.

 

Of course, more numbers are needed, however, such as percentage of full time to part time, and those in part time seeking full time, etc., those who have transitioned to lower paid industries (e.g. from engineer to waiter or some gig economy job). However, it shows that despite the advancement of technology, the workforce and employment, at least in Australia, remains robust - for now. 

 

3 hours ago, nomadpete said:

A very significant issue that Jerry touched upon is the whole issue of wealth distribution in the face of reducing conventional wage earning employment.

 

As he mentioned, due to less and less available gainful employment resulting from automation and A.I.  there will come a time when some form of universal payment will have to be implemented, in order to prevent starvation of the masses.

 

Further, somehow, society must address the problem of maintaining mental health when we lose the social benefit that flows from employment.

 

As well as the population dealing with this massive shift, the whole economy will have to adapt to these changes.

 

There might not be enough Soma available to subdue the people.

Absolutely true, and that is where the issues need to be addressed - or at least provisioned for - now. Regulators, sadly, play catch up, but the quantum and speed of workforce disruption is immense. Some people, especially the younger generations will, on average, cope better, as some of the opportunities are more suited to them. As an aside, my understanding (not fact checked) is that in Abu Dhabi at least, that locals do not have to work, and depending on their education and family line, they can expect a reasonable living wage. They are all employed, but attendance is optional. That was back in the late 90s when I worked on a client site for only two weeks.. and was told that by an ex-pat American. Mind you, I hated the place, and to your colleagues that ended up  out there, was there no work in Europe? 

 

A slight diversion, but despite the lure of a very good salary and no taxes, if you ever see me near the UAE, you know I have either stuffed up badly, or gone insane. Hated the place.

 

Also, coming from utilities and mining (IT side) myself, when I returned to Aus in 2003, there was virtually no (decent paid) work in either - at least in the cities (Perth wasn't an option at the time.. something I regret). 

 

 

3 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

I had the article "Computerize and be damned" pinned to my office wall in 1973. Just found it through the power of Google. See page 51 onward.

 

https://worldradiohistory.com/AUSTRALIA/ETI-Australia/70s/ETI-1973-04.pdf

 

An interesting article, but not the one I was thinking about. Any industry in its infancy (and in the 70's computing was still in its infancy) is going to have issues and be expensive. Compare the cost of the first colour TV sets to arrive in Aus to those today. Mind you, some of the issues, like not knowing the industry or the business they are deploying to count today as much as it did then. One of the dilemma of development teams is they have to be professional technologists and reasonably competent in the business in which they are serving, to boot. I can go on and on about the issues of staff in technology today (at least for commercial operations).. 

 

46 minutes ago, octave said:

I am not sure why this means less face to face interaction.  Jobs that aren't automated will still require interaction.  Apart from that more leisure time will allow opportunities for more social interaction.

I am not entirely sure this is the case. Over here, since the pandemic has ended, there are many non-automated jobs that no longer are face to face (but admittedly, are person to person). For example, GPs here conduct 80% of their consultations over the phone. This started during the pandemic, and the population are still wary of it, but it seems a new model that is here to stay. In my work, there is no need whatsoever to come into the office. I worked for my current company for 10 months before coming into the office, and had established networks and relationships in much the same way as previously (I am a recluse at work, believe it or not). Agree with the leisure time comment, however, those of us who are socially awkward may suffer without the structured environment work puts in place.

 

[Edit] For younger people, I can see the disadvantage. First of all, for learning the ropes, and getting to understand the mechanism of the system, face to face is important. Also, as body language is a big part of communication, especially in younger years. And of course, the office is the biggest dating agency in town, so they would miss out on variety in that side of life, too. For me, not being at the office has the advantage than I am not concentrating on a fair member of the fairer sex/gender during a discussion, but focussing on work (though.. there is one who has such a sultry voice, that even in  voice conferences, the mind does wander (and wonder).

 

33 minutes ago, octave said:

I think that in the past the education system focused on preparing students for one career. Nowadays it is more a case of preparing students to be able to adapt to career changes. The future may require people to live fulfilling lives that do not revolve solely on paid paid activity 

If the education system is not doing this, they are providing a great disservice to the emerging generations. Speaking of the ability to adapt being more the preserve of the young, I was thinking about all of the social media methods of earning a living that simply weren't around in the form they are today. No one wants an old codger parading about in his board shorts getting a crab to open a stubbie, like the Aussie bronzed, fit, and blonder flowing locks youtuber my daughter follows. I can't even see Narelle at the old folks home remotely interested in us oldies doing the same. 

 

Edited June 1, 2022 by Jerry_Atrick

[octave]

34 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Volunteers say that what they do as volunteers for no pay are the most satisfying things they have done in their lives. However, being able to volunteer requires that your basic survival needs have been met - food, clothing, habitation and social interaction. Until your kids have left home, you are too concerned with meeting those needs to go volunteering, without ignoring one or more of them.

 

Yes it is the old conundrum.  Time vs money. For the most part when you have money (working) you have little time but if you are not working then you tend to have less money. 

12 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

I am not entirely sure this is the case. Over here, since the pandemic has ended, there are many non-automated jobs that no longer are face to face (but admittedly, are person to person).

Yes I can see that. It does I guess also depend on how you define social contact.  Before I retired I was teaching around 30 people a week online which was socially rewarding (and socially exhausting)  I guess it would vary between different industries.  It also varies between people. Some people enjoy a lot of social contact and others would rather work alone.    I think the history of work generally has been in the direction of working less hours (with some jobs going the other way).  I think at every stage there has been some anxiety about what will people do when if they don't work 48 hours a week.   

 

I think as people (hopefully) work fewer hours they will rely less on work for social contact.   Social contact is a lot more important if you work extremely long hours.  Working shorter hours allows more time to learn a musical instrument or learn to fly etc.  These activities do provide plenty of social contact.    Of course this does rely on income.   

[spacesailor]

The unemployment rate is False. 

According to those who get Two days work, with less than eight hours each day.

They Loose their unemployment money  !.

No super is payed , No holidays No sick pay

AND

NO BLOODY DOLE MONEY.

spacesailor   grandad to a few unemployed.

 

[nomadpete]

22 hours ago, octave said:

Just a few assorted thoughts

I would argue that there is probably no less gainful employment and perhaps there may actually be more.  Less checkout operators but more automatic checkout machine designers, builders and software people.   It could be argued that these may be better quality jobs than stranding at a checkout serving  sometimes rude customers.

 

A huge proportion of the jobs available today had not been heard of when I left school.  

 

A point often made is that if we have a social wage and do not need to work or need to work fewer days that we will not know what to do with ourselves.   As someone who retired 18 months ago. I still don't have time to do all the things I want to.   The point is that we do need meaningful things to do but this shouldn't be confused with paid work.   

 

 

But octave, you are saying that ALL people displaced by automation are getting better jobs. My point is that if that is true (I contend it cannot be true), there is no economic gain overall. Business and the whole economy would collapse from the burden of everybody getting more pay than they did prior to automation.

 

When I was young, early employment was available in many mundane jobs. These are all gone now, due to automation and cheap poverty exploitation in other countries. Those simple jobs gave young people the early learning of responsibility, and often offered advancement through experience, learning and training. Similar personal development is no longer available today, unless one aspires to a life serving coffee.

 

For proof, take a look at the stats for underemployed people - those trying to gain full meaningful employment. We have worse unemployment now than ever, because for all the advantages of automation, the drawback is that there are less jobs overall

 

 

 

Edited June 2, 2022 by nomadpete

[octave]

15 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

But octave, you are saying that ALL people displaced by automation are getting better jobs.

No

 

15 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

My point is that if that is true (I contend it cannot be true), there is no economic gain overall. Business and the whole economy would collapse from the burden of everybody getting more pay than they did prior to automation.

Better jobs do not necessarily mean higher pay.  Mind numbingly boring jobs or jobs, jobs that are demeaning or physically damaging ought be replaced by automation.  Jobs that are done better by automation ought to be.    If it were true that automation only had a net negative effect on employment we would surely expect that a graph of unemployment would show a steady climb.  I seem to remember that when I left school the unemployment rate was around 10 percent.   

 

In any case what do we do about it?  Do we halt innovation?   Do we pay a higher price for fuel and have someone fill our tank for us? 

 

 

[nomadpete]

I am not anti-automation.

I love most innovations.

My career was one long stream of learning new technologies and participating in building, commissioning and even sometimes selling new stuff.

I believe that unemployment stats have been manipulated for many years by moving the goalposts. Yes, Spacey, I agree with you. I believe the true unemployment rate is hidden.

On average, throughout my working life, I guess I averaged at least a month a year doing formal training courses. Probably more. It was the only way to stay in the game. By the time I watched the first moon landing, I knew to expect change. I noted that most managerial types had serious difficulty learning to cope with change. I still don't see the education system (nor social media) helping our young to prepare to be more adaptive or opportunistic in this changing environment. Especially they need to learn resilience to deal with the uncertainty that comes with casualisation of the workforce and frequent loss of jobs.

Anyway, I haven't got enough leisure time to chat. I have meaningful employment to attend to - splitting firewood, shovelling mud from the driveway, changing oil in the tractor, fix the flat tyre on the mower, and it's fire brigade training tonight.

Mind you, I haven't had the luxury of a wage for years. Soon my savings will be gone. Tell me where does a seventy year old find a meaningful job that pays a fair wage, in this Brave New World, Octave?

 

 

Edited June 2, 2022 by nomadpete

[octave]

Things certainly have changed. I finished  high school in 1979.  At this time many of my peers had already left school when they turned 15.  Nowadays people tend to not leave at 15.   Even given automation, there are still many areas for younger people to work in.   The usual supermarket and retail entry level jobs still exist, even if they are reduced due to automation and online shopping etc. When I was a child in the 70s our local shopping centre had a fish and chip shop, this was the extent of the hospitality industry in our area.   Today I live in a different but similar suburb and I can think of 5 cafes within walking distance.   They all tend to employ younger people.  It is hard to imagine how these particular jobs can be totally automated out of existence.   

 

I have an old airline ticket from the early 80s. I travelled from Sydney to Adelaide and back and the airfare was enormous compared to today.   A couple of weeks ago I travelled to Adelaide for less than $50 each way.  As opposed to the old days we did not have to save up.   Because it was (is) so cheap we and some friends went to an "escape room" which was great fun.    Escape rooms did not exist 20 years ago (as far as I know) but they are very popular now and these businesses employ workers.   My point is that sure some businesses or occupations die out  but they are always replaced by new businesses. 

I understand that for some individuals it can be difficult.  I have been extremely lucky that I have had a lifetime in the same industry although this did require me to adapt.   Something that is crucial today is the ability to adapt.   I do think younger generations are better at this than us old codgers. 

[onetrack]

I read some time ago that the people with the most to fear as regards total redundancy are lawyers and the legal profession in general. The article said that in the future, the entire legal knowledge of a country will be lodged on computer databases, and AI will search out the cases and decisions in milliseconds, and make a decision in your complaint, based on all the important and landmark previous cases and decisions - and that decision will be within minutes, not years as it currently stands.

 

The ramifications of AI in the legal system are enormous, it means all the evidence can be collated simultaneously, inserted into the database, and a decision or judgement handed down the same day.

Criminals will get appropriate sentences, the chances of bribery or mates with the right handshake getting favourable or warped decisions will no longer happen, and lawyers will have to find something else to do with their collective knowledge and training.

[spacesailor]

Just checked ' Return Sydney to Adalaide '  $ 188 !.

IF

Lawyers are to be redundent, wouldn,t they enact new laws,  to cover their own Butts !.

ALL CONTRACTS are written by a ' sounder ' of lawyers with their noses in the money trough.

Am l right ?.

Or is it politicians in general! .

spacesailor

[rgmwa]

I've been very lucky to have had a constantly changing career in engineering. We used slide rules in Uni until the first relatively well off student in our group spent $225 (a fortune in 1972) on a calculator. It would now be considered barely worthy of first year high school, but we all clustered around while he demonstrated this amazing new gadget. As time went on we all had to adapt and learn. We now use software and technology that has undreamed of capabilities compared to what we had to work with early on - pencil and paper. Even Covid has changed how we work. I can now work from home as easily as going into the office, and save three hours a day travelling. Technology has had a profound effect on what we can do, how we work, and for how long we can work. Luckily, AI hasn't been able to take over our profession - yet.  

 

[spacesailor]

Someone Flys into Bankstown ( weather permitting  ) daily !, a white low wing with dark wingtips.

I always wonder ' would s/he get paid when the weather is too bad to fl ?.

spacesailor

[Jerry_Atrick]

@spacesailor - your family on part time that lose their dole is really unfair. Over 'ere, the Universal Credit (which replaces a raft of different welfare payments) can top up shortfalls, even if people are in full time employment. It is really short sighted not to do the same for part time workers where they rely on the income.. it is a disincentive to work at all.

 

@nomadpete - sorry to hear of your predicament. However, there appears to be work for mature people. In this case, society is slow to catch up with reality. Due to advances in health care, better nutrition and understanding of physical health, not only are populations living longer, but they are more active in their older years. My father worked - albeit only 3 days a week - in a garage until he was about 75. He did it to keep fit and keep the money rolling in (super was the preserve of the high-end professionals and public servants when in his years). I know there is ageism, esp in Australia. But, the tide is turning,. Try looking for mature work at Seek.com.au.. I am having dinner next week with a couple of blokes from my old nuke days. One is 72 and still going strong in a consulting role. 

 

As Octave mentions, redeployment doesn't always mean the same or better pay. What it does guarantee, taking out the effects of a growing economy - is lower demand of people entering the workforce. Natural and occupational attrition will ensure there is demand, but not as much as now. However, younger people are remarkably adaptive, so they will seek new ways of work. However, when AI disruption does bite, there is a need for a complete rethink or work life balance, education, and social wage.  Sadly, our pillars of pollies and corporates are not up to the task.

 

1 hour ago, onetrack said:

I read some time ago that the people with the most to fear as regards total redundancy are lawyers and the legal profession in general. The article said that in the future, the entire legal knowledge of a country will be lodged on computer databases, and AI will search out the cases and decisions in milliseconds, and make a decision in your complaint, based on all the important and landmark previous cases and decisions - and that decision will be within minutes, not years as it currently stands.

 

The ramifications of AI in the legal system are enormous, it means all the evidence can be collated simultaneously, inserted into the database, and a decision or judgement handed down the same day.

Criminals will get appropriate sentences, the chances of bribery or mates with the right handshake getting favourable or warped decisions will no longer happen, and lawyers will have to find something else to do with their collective knowledge and training.

I have read about the potential of AI to take over the legal profession.. again, it will disrupt it, and many lawyers will not be needed. But it won't totally replace them. I am not sure about Australia, but already there are paralegal firms that handle many standard form contracts - for example, conveyancing, intellectual property, etc. If something is curly, they bring in a lawyer. AI can be used to virtually completely automate these functions, and again, call a lawyer if something is curly. Will AI dispense with judges and barristers? Well, maybe for routine stuff where the evidence is not in doubt. But often with trials the evidence is in doubt and indeed the application of the law may be in doubt due to conflicting precedent, or the fact the evidence in the seminal cases are different in a nuanced way that would alter the outcome. A feature of the common law is that case law evolves the law; this may be because of the above, or simply because of societal attitude changes. With new legislation, facts may arise that require an different approach to the literal interpretation of the statue. Without history, how will AI know what to do? Yes, AI can learn over time the usual nuanced and heuristic processes humans apply in the main and attempt to reapply them, but the subtleties are infinite. 

 

Then, what if someone appeals an AI decision.. This would be an assertion the AI came to the wrong conclusion.. which would necessitate a human review of legal minds... Of course, once the evidence is decided, verdict made, and any mitigating factors agreed, AI can be used to determine sentence, or if history of success of reform approaches are kept and can be profiled to the person, the reform requirements, to. 

 

2 hours ago, rgmwa said:

I can now work from home as easily as going into the office, and save three hours a day travelling. Technology has had a profound effect on what we can do, how we work, and for how long we can work.

Before the pandemic, I was working from home 2 - 3 days/week. One of the companies I worked for directed staff to only come in when there was a need to "press the flesh". I had a discussion with a recruiter from Sydney yesterday who told me that one of the Sydney based banks had working for them as far away as Adelaide, and that they came in once every three of four weeks. Even in Aus, in the late 90s, we would work from home on 1200bps dialups if all we had to do was documentation.

 

I joined my current gig in Nov 2020, and, due to lock down, didn't go into the office until September 2021. The firm were already requiring staff to work from home 2 days/week unless they were client facing. They have moved to new offices which were refitted specifically for people working from home an average of 3 - 4 days a week. We have team days where the whole department has to be in (mine is a Tuesday); and we are highly encouraged to come in another day a week for stakeholder collaboration. I think this is a good mix - even though I was able to establish networks and get right into my work without having physcially met anyone, face to face is important as humans communicate more by body language, and you can socialise which helps further understand the people you work with.  

 

However, with the right-leaning press here, there is a real rear-guard action against working from home., This is driven by the fact that it reduces demand for office space, and a lot of investment has been made in skyscrapers in London in the last 15 years (I was shocked at how short the skyline was when I arrived in London back in '96). The head of JLL penned an article in the paper accusing workers of acting like pop-stars, demanding to be able to wfh. The reality is, it is management who is requesting it, because they know they can get the same if not better productivity with less overhead.

[old man emu]

One of the hardest things for those who joined the workforce twenty years or more ago is learning to discipline themselves to work from home. Their induction into the workforce, and existence in it required taking the "Morning Train" (Sheena Easton reference) and working "Nine 'til Five" (Dolly Parton). The discipline involved in that forms habits which are hard to change.

 

But note here we have been concentrating on office workers, and maybe warehouse workers having their lives changed by AI controlled automation. The rest of the workforce is employed doing things that no level of AI or automation can do. I look out my window and see sheep growing their woolly coats. No machine can drive sheep to the shearing shed, let alone shear them. I look out to the highway and see men installing a culvert and drain, and soon others will come along to complete the rebuilding of the road.

[spacesailor]

A Question with it,s answer ! .

Who will control this New A I world ?.

THE SAME AS WHO CONTROLS US NOW.

The rich will forever be buying the pollies,

and the law makers, with the threat of ' fund withdrawal ' if it doesn't go their way.

If rich enough you can go to any country, to do what becomes harder to do here.

Not only is the lower paid unemployed, getting done over, even the government is losing money !!.

My grandson worked from 6.30 am to 12 oclock.

AND WAS GIVEN  $20. ONLY.  About $3.60 an hour.

No tax , insurance,  or anything to the government. 

IF  he goes back he Will loose his entire dole money !

Should l give him That $20 , out of my government poverty pension? .

Which will mean on monday he can claim his unemployment. 

NOT HAPPY Prime minister.

spacesailor