A rational employer is interested in how much value they can get, not how hard you work. In most cases, in the short term, an increase in efficiency means they can get more value from you working the same amount of the same pay.

▲

iugtmkbdfil834 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

The problem is how 'hard work' is defined. Does staying after hours count? Not automatically, but managers everywhere use it as a proxy ( whether it is dumb position or not is an argument in itself ). Does carefully considering your options count? Does being anal when it comes to minute detail count? All of these are small dimensions of hard work, but we throw those vague terms willy nilly, because we hope the audience will accept our 'used key term values' within our message to them.

▲

nkrisc an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Good thing all employers are rational.

▲

an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

thesuitonym 39 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yeah but if the AI is doing the work, why should I pay you?

	▲	InitialBP 26 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Because a human is operating it. You don't pay a truck or an airplane, you pay the people who drive, fly, maintain, and generally operate them.
	▲	jayd16 13 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Do it yourself then if you prefer. Same as it's ever been.
	▲	WelkinFolk 32 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		In that case, please just use the AI yourself and don't hire anyone ever.

▲

hsuduebc2 43 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Keep in mind that developers at Amazon were pressured this year to burn through as many tokens as possible because their “rational” employer assumed that productivity equals tokens consumed. I experienced similar situations on my last project.

The abstract concept of value you mention is part of the same vocabulary managers use, and I believe they often end up confusing even themselves with it.

They are just as rational as any other human being.

▲

pessimizer an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> an increase in efficiency

An increase in efficiency in and of itself, maybe, but there is no such thing. The increase in efficiency has largely come from deskilling the job. Deskilling the job makes the employees time less valuable, because they can be substituted for another more easily.

[edit: it's important to mention that this is compatible with programmer ego trips. I consider myself a reasonably good programmer and I've been doing it for a long time, but AI has made me far more eligible for jobs in languages that I have never used on platforms that I have never worked with.]

But another factor is that just because you can do work faster doesn't mean there's more work to do, so if you were hitting all your deadlines before with two employees, now you can fire one. Which one that will be is the result of a reverse wage auction.

	▲	qwytw 41 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> Deskilling the job makes the employees time less valuable, because they can be substituted for another more easily. That's not that self evident yet. If AI is a multiplier it might be the other way around i.e. can a $300k engineer + unlimited tokens generate more a $200k in extra value compared to a $100k engineer? That should be much easier to achieve with AI than without it? The more you spend on tokens the more it makes sense to hire the most highly skilled people you can find since their salaries are no longer that significant. I don't think the dynamics are similar to what they are e.g. during the industrial revolution since AI is more than capable of clicking the submit button on its own. The issue is that wages are based on supply and demand and rarely directly related to how much value you generate.