Increasing working hours decreases actual labor done per hour. A person working 40 hours per week will more often than not achieve more than someone working 70.
“in Britain during the First World War, there had been a munitions factory that made people work seven days a week. When they cut back to six days, they found, the factory produced more overall.”
“In 1920s Britain, W. G. Kellogg—the manufacturer of cereals—cut his staff from an eight-hour day to a six-hour day, and workplace accidents (a good measure of attention) fell by 41 percent. In 2019 in Japan, Microsoft moved to a four-day week, and they reported a 40 percent improvement in productivity. In Gothenberg in Sweden around the same time, a care home for elderly people went from an eight-hour day to a six-hour day with no loss of pay, and as a result, their workers slept more, experienced less stress, and took less time off sick. In the same city, Toyota cut two hours per day off the workweek, and it turned out their mechanics produced 114 percent of what they had before, and profits went up by 25 percent. All this suggests that when people work less, their focus significantly improves. Andrew told me we have to take on the logic that more work is always better work. “There’s a time for work, and there’s a time for not having work,” he said, but today, for most people, “the problem is that we don’t have time. Time, and reflection, and a bit of rest to help us make better decisions. So, just by creating that opportunity, the quality of what I do, of what the staff does, improves.””
Hari, J. (2022). Stolen Focus: Why You Can’t Pay Attention–and How to Think Deeply Again. Crown.
In 1920s Britain, W. G. Kellogg: A. Coote et al., The Case for a Four Day Week (London: Polity, 2021), 6.
In 2019 in Japan, Microsoft moved to a four-day week: K. Paul, “Microsoft Japan Tested a Four-Day Work Week and Productivity Jumped by 40%,” Guardian, November 4, 2019; and Coote et al., Case for a Four Day Week, 89.
In Gothenberg in Sweden around the same time: Coote et al., Case for a Four Day Week, 68–71.
In the same city, Toyota cut two hours per: day: Ibid., 17–18.
The real point of increasing working hours is to make your job consume your life.
They are very impressive to where we were 20 years ago, hell even 5 years ago. The first time I played with ChatGPT I was absolutely floored. But after playing with a lot of them, even training a few RAGs (Retrieval-Augmented Generation), we aren’t really that close and in my opinion this is not a useful path towards a true AGI. Don’t get me wrong, this tool is extremely useful and to most people, they’d likely pass a basic Turing Test. But LLMs are sophisticated pattern recognition systems trained on vast amounts of text data that predict the most likely next word or token in a sequence. That’s really all they do. They are really good at predicting the next word. While they demonstrate impressive language capabilities, they lack several fundamental components necessary for an AGI:
-no true understanding
-they can’t really engage in the real world.
-they have no real ability to learn real-time.
-they don’t really have the ability to take in more then one type of info at a time.
I mean the simplest way in my opinion to explain the difference is you will never have an LLM just come up with something on its own. It’s always just a response to a prompt.
Or option 4) stay as you are and you will just acheive it in due time rather than in a 50% shorter timeframe?
Edit: 25% shorter? I dont know, maths isnt my strong suit and im drunk.
I’m really getting sick and tired of these rich fuckers saying shit like this.
we are no where close to AGI given this current technology.
working 50% longer is not going to make a bit of difference for AGI
and even if it would matter, hire 50% more people
The only thing this is going to accomplish is likely make him wealthier. So fuck him.
Increasing working hours decreases actual labor done per hour. A person working 40 hours per week will more often than not achieve more than someone working 70.
“in Britain during the First World War, there had been a munitions factory that made people work seven days a week. When they cut back to six days, they found, the factory produced more overall.”
“In 1920s Britain, W. G. Kellogg—the manufacturer of cereals—cut his staff from an eight-hour day to a six-hour day, and workplace accidents (a good measure of attention) fell by 41 percent. In 2019 in Japan, Microsoft moved to a four-day week, and they reported a 40 percent improvement in productivity. In Gothenberg in Sweden around the same time, a care home for elderly people went from an eight-hour day to a six-hour day with no loss of pay, and as a result, their workers slept more, experienced less stress, and took less time off sick. In the same city, Toyota cut two hours per day off the workweek, and it turned out their mechanics produced 114 percent of what they had before, and profits went up by 25 percent. All this suggests that when people work less, their focus significantly improves. Andrew told me we have to take on the logic that more work is always better work. “There’s a time for work, and there’s a time for not having work,” he said, but today, for most people, “the problem is that we don’t have time. Time, and reflection, and a bit of rest to help us make better decisions. So, just by creating that opportunity, the quality of what I do, of what the staff does, improves.””
In 1920s Britain, W. G. Kellogg: A. Coote et al., The Case for a Four Day Week (London: Polity, 2021), 6.
In 2019 in Japan, Microsoft moved to a four-day week: K. Paul, “Microsoft Japan Tested a Four-Day Work Week and Productivity Jumped by 40%,” Guardian, November 4, 2019; and Coote et al., Case for a Four Day Week, 89.
In Gothenberg in Sweden around the same time: Coote et al., Case for a Four Day Week, 68–71.
In the same city, Toyota cut two hours per: day: Ibid., 17–18.
The real point of increasing working hours is to make your job consume your life.
Imagine how much productivity we’d have if we cut work to 0 hours per week
relative to where we were before LLMs, I think we’re quite close
They are very impressive to where we were 20 years ago, hell even 5 years ago. The first time I played with ChatGPT I was absolutely floored. But after playing with a lot of them, even training a few RAGs (Retrieval-Augmented Generation), we aren’t really that close and in my opinion this is not a useful path towards a true AGI. Don’t get me wrong, this tool is extremely useful and to most people, they’d likely pass a basic Turing Test. But LLMs are sophisticated pattern recognition systems trained on vast amounts of text data that predict the most likely next word or token in a sequence. That’s really all they do. They are really good at predicting the next word. While they demonstrate impressive language capabilities, they lack several fundamental components necessary for an AGI: -no true understanding -they can’t really engage in the real world. -they have no real ability to learn real-time. -they don’t really have the ability to take in more then one type of info at a time.
I mean the simplest way in my opinion to explain the difference is you will never have an LLM just come up with something on its own. It’s always just a response to a prompt.
Or option 4) stay as you are and you will just acheive it in due time rather than in a 50% shorter timeframe?
Edit: 25% shorter? I dont know, maths isnt my strong suit and im drunk.