Working in IoT and seeing AI/robotics, manufacturing and basic office duties is completely automated. Yeah it’s not 100% but it’s fucking way cheaper in short term and other many light benefits. I’m not happy about this and that’s just logic to acknowledge the truth. I’m for employee of people but next automation is already here.
this post was submitted on 01 May 2025
293 points (98.7% liked)
Technology
69658 readers
2758 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yet another reason to look at non US CPUs going forward. Either RISC-V or ARM from Europe/Korea.
Its the business cycle. Smart companies are slowing production.
Specifying "human layoffs" is weird
So they’ll lower prices. Right?
Their margins are being squeezed by AMD, so they already are.
Something a lot of people don't understand (you obviously do) is that pricing is not based on what something costs. It's based on the absolute maximum a consumer is willing to pay. If they cut costs somehow, they just pocket the difference. If it costs more to make than a consumer will pay they just don't make it.
In theory, it would allow them to reduce costs to compete better with rivals and sell more.
But usually it's the thing you said. Capitalism fundamentals are pretty broken in most markets.
In theory, it would allow them to reduce costs to compete better with rivals and sell more.
Selling more could mean lower profits over all. If you have to build out extra production capacity (new fixed costs) to create more product that you're receiving a lower price on, then it could have been more profitable to sell fewer units but at a higher cost creating more profit.
Example: If you're at 90% capacity on your $1 billion factory selling your product for high price/high profit, and you lower your price which increase sales by 20%, you now have to another $1 billion factory to product the 8% of product not producible at your first factory. You've now lost nearly $1 billon from your larger sales.
Padme: Right?
Anakin:
>:)
It'll take another massive quality scandal, or just a generation of shit products, but sure
Nah. This just increases profits.
But it also lowers yhe quality
If Intel had trotted out Chip and then announced it would be creating a universal basic income scheme based on the savings the company was amassing by using Chip, then I'd be clapping along with the audience. As it stands, it just seems like bad taste during a difficult time.
I'm not sure the author of the article has a realistic understanding of Intel's role or ability to affect change public policy.
It’s not a great place to be. Intel and other major corporations buy political influence. Politicians act in the best interests of their benefactors, and for most, that’s not the voters. I don’t think it’s practical either, but maybe there’s some use in including these kinds of political ideas when these things happen, as a reminder that they wield political influence.
It's true that Intel probably shouldn't be handing out UBI, but if companies want to promote how much they don't need people's labor anymore, then that should be taken into consideration in policy making.
Somewhere along the line we lost one of the basic things underpinning our current economic structure -- that corporations are supposedly better at allocating, distributing, and utilizing resources than a centrally planned economy with a governmental overlord. It sure sounds to me like Intel and other companies that are handing out pink slips for every bit of thing they automate cannot find anything to do with the human resources they've got.
To put it more simply, corporations aren't allowed to exist purely because they "make money". One of their primary functions is to employ people.
It’s true that Intel probably shouldn’t be handing out UBI, but if companies want to promote how much they don’t need people’s labor anymore, then that should be taken into consideration in policy making.
Yes exactly, policy making at the government level, not at the corporate level as the author was suggesting.
To put it more simply, corporations aren’t allowed to exist purely because they “make money”.
Under capitalism, yes they are.
One of their primary functions is to employ people.
I'd argue under capitalism, that isn't even a secondary function. Employing people may be tertiary at best.
If you look at what many consider to be the golden age of American corporations after the second world war, the notion of a "company man" was a celebrated one, and companies bragged about how they treated their employees. In that era, unlike today's, shedding employees was not seen as an achievement but rather either a necessary evil, or a sign that the company was going down the tubes.
Over time and with complacency, we've ceded the territory on these things. We can say that is inevitable under capitalism that this happens if it makes you happy, but either way at one point it was a major part of the stated purpose of corporations to employ people and help them live productive lives.
Edit: I agree that what you currently have with corporations are resource devouring, profit-pursuing, psychopathic immortal monsters, but none of those things, philosophically speaking, justifies their existence as legal entities.
The platonic ideal of a corporation that owns everything, builds everything, controls everything, and employs nobody will never be fully realized, because the people it is harming will eventually rise to destroy it, or die trying.
If you look at what many consider to be the golden age of American corporations after the second world war, the notion of a “company man” was a celebrated one, and companies bragged about how they treated their employees. In that era, unlike today’s, shedding employees was not seen as an achievement but rather either a necessary evil, or a sign that the company was going down the tubes.
You've got rose colored glasses on. This was only true if you were white, male, and a white collar worker.
At the same time for everyone else, employers were increasing working hours, reducing workplace safety, in exchange for higher worker wages:
"During the years when wages were rising, working conditions were deteriorating. Employers made up for higher wages by negotiating higher levels of output into union contracts. And the labor leaders--seasoned veterans of business unionism by the 1960s--were all too willing to comply. Time off in the form of vacations, coffee breaks and sick leave all fell victim to new work standards negotiated in the 1950s and 1960s, while automation, forced overtime and speedups allowed management to more than compensate for high wages. During the period from 1955 to 1967, non-farm employees' average work hours rose by 18 percent, while manufacturing workers' increased by 14 percent. In the same period, labor costs in non-farm business rose 26 percent, while after-tax corporate profits soared 108 percent. And during the period between 1950 and 1968, while the number of manufacturing workers grew by 28.8 percent, manufacturing output increased by some 91 percent."
You’ve got rose colored glasses on.
Not really, I expect that I would've hated a great many things about the supposed golden age.
This was only true if you were white, male, and a white collar worker.
Of course, people didn't have anything approaching equal rights at the time. It could be argued that they never actually would up to and including today.
It wasn't a utopia by any stretch, but in today's economy Intel will openly celebrate laying people off and having less employees. There has been a giant swing toward people generally thinking that "greed is good", and an exhaultation of sociopaths.
The wealth distribution wasn't perfect, great, utopian, or even good during the entire history of the US, but it's worse now than it was in the -- what I'm now calling the first -- gilded age.
It wasn’t a utopia by any stretch, but in today’s economy Intel will openly celebrate laying people off and having less employees.
...and...
The wealth distribution wasn’t perfect, great, utopian, or even good during the entire history of the US, but it’s worse now than it was in the – what I’m now calling the first – gilded age.
You're painting the 1950s as a better time for workers than today, and except for the white, male, white collar workers, I think your position is just fiction.
There were some bad things that were even worse in some cases happening back to lots of other groups (again besides white, male, white collar workers).
Things like:
- 1952 President Truman using the power of government to suppress wages of workers to keep the price of steel lower to fund the Korean war effort. source
- 1950, a record (for the time) 4843 work stoppages PDF source
- 1956 Whirlpool Tracking workers and firing any the exhibited "pro union" ideas source
- 1951 police jailing children of workers that were on a strike picket line source
I'm not defending corporations of today, I'm pointing out that there's been shitty behavior all along. The 1950s were not a pro-worker era as you're trying to paint it as...unless you were white, male, and white collared worker. If so, then yes, it was great.
I don't understand what you're trying to prove here to be honest. Of course there's been shitty behavior all along. This is America. It's a country founded by slave owners that wanted to be free. (Carlin)
My point is simple: corporations are a made-up concept and one of the main things people are supposed to get in the deal to allow them to exist in the first place is efficient allocation and utilization of human resources.
It seems to me they are admitting that they cannot do that. In which case, the deal should be renegotiated.
I don’t understand what you’re trying to prove here to be honest. Of course there’s been shitty behavior all along.
This is the first post you haven't been praising the 1950s as a better time for workers. Thats what I was trying to prove. All your prior posts were speaking nostalgically about the "better time" for workers in the 1950s. Besides a small set, it wasn't better, and many times worse. Thats all.
My point is simple: corporations are a made-up concept and one of the main things people are supposed to get in the deal to allow them to exist in the first place is efficient allocation and utilization of human resources.
Efficient for the corporations. Not efficient for an individual.
It seems to me they are admitting that they cannot do that. In which case, the deal should be renegotiated.
Their goal isn't your goal. There can be an argument made whether capitalism should exist, but under the current system they are behaving as capitalists. Workers welfare isn't their primary goal, and in fact, only a goal at all as required by law (OSHA, DoL rules).
This is the first post you haven’t been praising the 1950s as a better time for workers.
Isn't at all, but you're reading whatever you want into my posts. So keep on keeping on. 👍
I get that you recently read some Marx or some shit, but corporations aren't just capitalism. They have charters. They were put into existence via law. It is possible to still be "under capitalism" and restructure the laws. Full on gay space communism isn't required to make any progress on any issue.
This is the first post you haven’t been praising the 1950s as a better time for workers.
Isn’t at all, but you’re reading whatever you want into my posts. So keep on keeping on. 👍
Do I need to quote you back to yourself? Okay, these are your words:
"If you look at what many consider to be the golden age of American corporations after the second world war, the notion of a 'company man' was a celebrated one"
"but it’s worse now than it was in the – what I’m now calling the first – gilded age."
I think we've hit the end of productive conversation between the two of us on this subject. I appreciate your conversation up to now. You're welcome to keep going, but I won't be responding on this thread anymore. I hope you have a great day!
If you look at what many consider to be the golden age
Emphasis mine
I didn't even say I consider it a golden age, because I don't.
but it’s worse now than it was in the – what I’m now calling the first – gilded age.
The gilded age was not in the 1950s. Also, gilded age doesn't mean golden age.
I think we’ve hit the end of productive conversation between the two of us on this subject
Agreed. Maybe next time read and understand some of the responses?
Employing humans is a bug, not a feature
I'm not sure I'd call it a "bug". It can be exploited to obtain tax breaks, which benefits the "make money" primary goal.
An AI robot to look for sensors that can be already read since decades? What is that marketing bullshit?
Great, I was just thinking about buying an Intel Arc VGA...