OK, find me an employer who does not require me to work 5x more and 5x faster than before and we'll not feel the cognitive decline by being able to, you know, actually stop and ingest the info with our brains, at our own pace, and forming lasting memories and lasting patterns in our brains.

Articles like these are just screaming into the void. A lot of us get the problem just fine, dude; find me a job with the pre-AI ethics and requirements and then we are talking.

If not, then it comes across as empty virtue-signaling. We're WAY beyond the raising-awareness phase. Who are you preaching to? You think the people who believe that they can now get 10x (or more) value from us + the agents are going to suddenly stop? How does the whole thing go in your head?

▲

kretaceous 18 hours ago | parent [-]

To me, the article comes across as introspective (which by the way, I found extremely relatable) and not preachy.

Your comment also feels that you are not happy about where the industry is headed but don't you think your anger is misplaced?

	▲	pdimitar 18 hours ago \| parent [-]
		My comment is more or less "I get the problems and I am not seeing the market agree that there even is a problem". It's capitalism manifest: squeeze the workers as hard as you can, get the next batch when the current one gets drained. Those incentives always existed and AI amplified them, that's all there is to it really. Maybe the article is introspective, sure, but I am beyond the phase of realizing those kinds of problems and so to me it reads like meaningless repetition and merits only a sarcastic "Oh really? Never would have guessed." eyebrow-assisted remark from me. I get it that's not a popular point of view -- HN really loves their virtue signalling and the ever-present "we must do something!"... whoever "we" is, that's never specified, naturally. But I am not karma farming, so people can and should freely cast their votes on my posted comments.