Boredom and Apathy by Second-Class Citizens (2024)

Ultimately the work done is never fairly rewarded if the company you work for is able to make a profit. There is no magical profit realm so someone has to pay for it.

1. Rip off your suppliers

2. Underpay your employees

3. Overcharge your customers

Even if you only screw one of those to turn a profit, you're still screwing the other 2 because you are taking the majority of profit and it's not fairly going to the people doing the actual work.

I can't find any enjoyment in this, it's not like i have a mental disability where something as simple as a lunchbox with my favorite cartoon character on it can make me happy for the day.

I work for a fairly large organization. When I started, I was all excited to both do my job and to contribute to the organization. I was soon disabused any notion that anyone at my work had any appreciation of either what I do or the ideas that I had to contribute.

I found that when I offered ideas, even when I was the only one in the room who had thought about a particular aspect of my job and/or my organization, and several times even when my PhD related directly to the topic at hand, my ideas were dismissed out of hand and I was chastised for even thinking that I had a place to offer anything to the organization The so-called problem? I have job title x and only those with job title q are to give ideas to the organization, NEVER job title x or anything other than q. Of course, I know of at least two occasions when a q person dismissed my ideas then later submitted and took credit for them as his own (and yes, I do think gender dynamics also plays a role here).

I have never been someone who thinks that they are always right, nor do I think that all of my ideas are the best or even necessarily what the company needs; sometimes people in other areas of the organization know information that I do not and so have different ideas of what will work and what will not. However, it is very frustrating to be dismissed out of hand without anyone even hearing my ideas just because of an arbitrary possession of x title instead of q, especially at times when I am uniquely qualified to understand a particular aspect of my job or the organization.

When my new supervisor transferred in from another department she had the 'get to know you' interviews with us. She commented to me that she noticed I often have good ideas. I explained to her that yes I do, but that I would never again offer any to this organization. From now on, I am taking the time and energy that I would have spent on generating and trying to gain acceptance for my ideas at work and pouring it all instead into my own projects and into finding a job at an organization that appreciates what I do. My supervisor was saddened by that but had to admit she could see my point of view.

In the meantime, I have completely disengaged emotionally and psychologically from my job - I still give good work but nothing more than my exact job description. I really have also taken all of that ideas energy and poured it into my own projects and into finding a job at an organization that appreciates what I do. One of the key features I had already listed for the new type of organization is to look for one that is new, small, and growing so quickly that they appreciate constructive input from everyone without boxing people into narrow job titles that limit their talents and creativity.

That's always a possibility too, if we're not careful. That's why the fight to preserve equality and the social safety net today is so critical, so we aren't setting the stage for the rich and powerful to use automation and AI as a weapon to screw the rest of us over and leave us with nothing in the future.

Personally I think that if we allow permanent private ownership of AI tech, it will inevitably lead to monopolization and the effect will be exactly as you describe. We're certainly on course for such a future as it stands right now. A couple ideas could be to set AI patents to expire after a set amount of time and enter the public domain (maybe a few years, given the assumed pace of technological advancement in the field). This would ensure that no permanent monopoly could exist, though it does carry the risk of a single private entity enjoying a permanent lead over everyone else. But this could be an option that those on the political/economic moderate-to-right could swallow.

Another solution could be to simply turn AI over to the public domain. Use it as a sort of infrastructure that any private entity could tap into should they so choose, without significant barriers to use. This would eliminate the risk of a single private enterprise wielding absolute control of AI development and application, but would run the risk of stifling private innovation. On the other hand, we should probably assume that AI will ultimately be capable of developing itself at a pace that far outstrips any human efforts, so it's possible that the factor of private innovation will become a moot point.

Or we could rely on regulations to determine limits on how AI is allowed to be used. But this might turn into an ad hoc endeavor, with regulators perpetually playing catch-up in a rapidly-advancing field, unsure of how best to react to the latest developments. Plus you would require a government with an appetite to enforce these regulations.

Point is, we have no idea how we're going to actually use AI today, nor do we know the ultimate outcome. But we'd better start thinking and strategizing now, because if we get this right, it could be quite beneficial to all of us. No matter how you slice it, we really are on the cusp of an economic and technological revolution, whether we want to be or not.