Yes. Because it’s in their own interest. AI doesn’t pay tax. And neither do the multi-billion dollar companies that run it.
I’m 50/50 on this. I prefer distributed ownership and distributed UBI and UBS.
I think we should do both. It’s important to arrest sudden mass layoffs to ensure people have time to develop new skills and transition to different kinds of jobs that will open up as a result.
China flagrantly ignores a lot of their laws, they outlawed 12-6 workweeks, 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, but their factories still force their workers to do them, and just pay them less for instance. China is entirely full of shit on protecting their workforce.
[citation needed]
deleted by creator
🤣
AI does not automate shit. It can augment human productivity but needs human supervision. If companies don’t know what to do with the additional capacity of their workers, they can simply reduce working hours, while keeping salaries the same. After all, automation is supposed to make our lives easier.
AI automates all kinds of shit when applied correctly. https://archive.ph/K5rv7
The problem is that automation never actually translates into benefits for the workers. The capital owning class appropriates all the value while the rest of the population continues to toil.
That’s a blithely rose colored view of the situation.
The adoption of AI is for the very purpose of automation to eliminate the most persistent thorn in the Capitalist’s side: human labour.
“They” will never use AI to make your, or my, life easier.
I’m made a normative statement, not a descriptive one.
Ah yes, the “normative statement”: when economists want a word to cover their blithely ignorant statements.
I’m not an economist.
“Normative” just means “this how I think things should be”.
The Horse Is Here To Stay, But the Automobile Is Only a Novelty — a Fad
The title is misleading. The Chinese ruling does not forbid companies from AI-based layoffs as the article explicitly says.
Citing Moshe Lander, economics professor at Concordia University, it says that
the ruling, which was issued ahead of China’s Labour Day on May 1, was likely a messaging and “self-preservation” exercise for the ruling Chinese Communist Party …
Such a ruling would be difficult to enforce, let alone in a democratic country, as the article also says while opening up alternatives:
Simon Blanchette, a management faculty lecturer at McGill University who researches AI and the future of work, said that … “in terms of practicality and the real outcome and externalities of it, it remains to be seen what would be the benefit tangibly" … "I think there other ways we could be exploring to help workers more, and have a more ‘AI-ready’ future.”
Ah yes, because if one thing that CPC is bad at is enforcing policy. 🤡
