Ciao, Enrico, Il 29/07/24 17:23, Enrico Nardelli ha scritto:
Estremizzando la sintesi mi pare si possa dire che la situazione è questa: - i capi hanno aderito all'assioma mediatico che con l'IA il dipendente debba essere più produttivo, ma metà dei dipendenti non ha idea di come fare; - per qualche motivo i consulenti sembrano invece non avere problemi ad essere più produttivi - quindi i capi esternalizzano il lavoro.
Cory Doctorow propone questa sintesi: lavorare in un posto di lavoro dotato di IA è come essere il genitore di un bambino bizzoso, che ha comprato un milione di allevamenti di scimmie di mare dall'ultima pagina di un fumetto (acquistandoli da un noto negazionista dell'Olocausto) e ti rovina la vita chiedendoti di capire come far indossare a quei minuscoli animaletti delle coroncine, come fanno nella pubblicità. When I took my kid to New Zealand with me on a book-tour, I was delighted to learn that grocery stores had special aisles where all the kids'-eye-level candy had been removed, to minimize nagging. What a great idea! Related: countries around the world limit advertising to children, for two reasons: 1) Kids may not be stupid, but they are inexperienced, and that makes them gullible; and 2) Kids don't have money of their own, so their path to getting the stuff they see in ads is nagging their parents, which creates a natural constituency to support limits on kids' advertising (nagged parents). There's something especially annoying about ads targeted at getting credulous people to coerce or torment other people on behalf of the advertiser. For example, AI companies spent millions targeting your boss in an effort to convince them that you can be replaced with a chatbot that absolutely, positively cannot do your job. Your boss has no idea what your job entails, and is (not so) secretly convinced that you're a featherbedding parasite who only shows up for work because you fear the breadline, and not because your job is a) challenging, or b) rewarding: <https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/19/make-them-afraid/#fear-is-their-mind-kill...> That makes them prime marks for chatbot-peddling AI pitchmen. Your boss would love to fire you and replace you with a chatbot. Chatbots don't unionize, they don't backtalk about stupid orders, and they don't experience any inconvenient moral injury when ordered to enshittify the product: <https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/25/moral-injury/#enshittification> Bosses are Bizarro-world Marxists. Like Marxists, your boss's worldview is organized around the principle that every dollar you take home in wages is a dollar that isn't available for executive bonuses, stock buybacks or dividends. That's why you boss is insatiably horny for firing you and replacing you with software. Software is cheaper, and it doesn't advocate for higher wages. That makes your boss such an easy mark for AI pitchmen, which explains the vast gap between the valuation of AI companies and the utility of AI to the customers that buy those companies' products. As an investor, buying shares in AI might represent a bet the usefulness of AI – but for many of those investors, backing an AI company is actually a bet on your boss's credulity and contempt for you and your job. But bosses' resemblance to toddlers doesn't end with their credulity. A toddler's path to getting that eye-height candy-bar goes through their exhausted parents. Your boss's path to realizing the productivity gains promised by an AI salesman runs through you. Continua qui: <https://pluralistic.net/2024/07/25/accountability-sinks/#work-harder-not-sma...>