Tootfinder

Why AI can't possibly make you more productive; long
#AI and "productivity", some thoughts:
Edit: fixed some typos.
Productivity is a concept that isn't entirely meaningless outside the context of capitalism, but it's a concept that is heavily inflected in a capitalist context. In many uses today it effectively means "how much you can satisfy and/or exceed your boss' expectations." This is not really what it should mean: even in an anarchist utopia, people would care about things like how many shirts they can produce in a week, although in an "I'd like to voluntarily help more people" way rather than an "I need to meet this quota to earn my survival" way. But let's roll with this definition for a second, because it's almost certainly what your boss means when they say "productivity", and understanding that word in a different (even if truer) sense is therefore inherently dangerous.
Accepting "productivity" to mean "satisfying your boss' expectations," I will now claim: the use of generative AI cannot increase your productivity.
Before I dive in, it's imperative to note that the big generative models which most people think of as constituting "AI" today are evil. They are 1: pouring fuel on our burning planet, 2: psychologically strip-mining a class of data laborers who are exploited for their precarity, 3: enclosing, exploiting, and polluting the digital commons, and 4: stealing labor from broad classes of people many of whom are otherwise glad to give that labor away for free provided they get a simple acknowledgement in return. Any of these four "ethical issues" should be enough *alone* to cause everyone to simply not use the technology. These ethical issues are the reason that I do not use generative AI right now, except for in extremely extenuating circumstances. These issues are also convincing for a wide range of people I talk to, from experts to those with no computer science background. So before I launch into a critique of the effectiveness of generative AI, I want to emphasize that such a critique should be entirely unnecessary.
But back to my thesis: generative AI cannot increase your productivity, where "productivity" has been defined as "how much you can satisfy and/or exceed your boss' expectations."
Why? In fact, what the fuck? Every AI booster I've met has claimed the opposite. They've given me personal examples of time saved by using generative AI. Some of them even truly believe this. Sometimes I even believe they saved time without horribly compromising on quality (and often, your boss doesn't care about quality anyways if the lack of quality is hard to measure of doesn't seem likely to impact short-term sales/feedback/revenue). So if generative AI genuinely lets you write more emails in a shorter period of time, or close more tickets, or something else along these lines, how can I say it isn't increasing your ability to meet your boss' expectations?
The problem is simple: your boss' expectations are not a fixed target. Never have been. In virtue of being someone who oversees and pays wages to others under capitalism, your boss' game has always been: pay you less than the worth of your labor, so that they can accumulate profit and thus more capital to remain in charge instead of being forced into working for a wage themselves. Sure, there are layers of management caught in between who aren't fully in this mode, but they are irrelevant to this analysis. It matters not how much you please your manager if your CEO thinks your work is not worth the wages you are being paid. And using AI actively lowers the value of your work relative to your wages.
Why do I say that? It's actually true in several ways. The most obvious: using generative AI lowers the quality of your work, because the work it produces is shot through with errors, and when your job is reduced to proofreading slop, you are bound to tire a bit, relax your diligence, and let some mistakes through. More than you would have if you are actually doing and taking pride in the work. Examples are innumerable and frequent, from journalists to lawyers to programmers, and we laugh at them "haha how stupid to not check whether the books the AI reviewed for you actually existed!" but on a deeper level if we're honest we know we'd eventually make the same mistake ourselves (bonus game: spot the swipe-typing typos I missed in this post; I'm sure there will be some).
But using generative AI also lowers the value of your work in another much more frightening way: in this era of hype, it demonstrates to your boss that you could be replaced by AI. The more you use it, and no matter how much you can see that your human skills are really necessary to correct its mistakes, the more it appears to your boss that they should hire the AI instead of you. Or perhaps retain 10% of the people in roles like yours to manage the AI doing the other 90% of the work. Paradoxically, the *more* you get done in terms of raw output using generative AI, the more it looks to your boss as if there's an opportunity to get enough work done with even fewer expensive humans. Of course, the decision to fire you and lean more heavily into AI isn't really a good one for long-term profits and success, but the modern boss did not get where they are by considering long-term profits. By using AI, you are merely demonstrating your redundancy, and the more you get done with it, the more redundant you seem.
In fact, there's even a third dimension to this: by using generative AI, you're also providing its purveyors with invaluable training data that allows them to make it better at replacing you. It's generally quite shitty right now, but the more use it gets by competent & clever people, the better it can become at the tasks those specific people use it for. Using the currently-popular algorithm family, there are limits to this; I'm not saying it will eventually transcend the mediocrity it's entwined with. But it can absolutely go from underwhelmingly mediocre to almost-reasonably mediocre with the right training data, and data from prompting sessions is both rarer and more useful than the base datasets it's built on.
For all of these reasons, using generative AI in your job is a mistake that will likely lead to your future unemployment. To reiterate, you should already not be using it because it is evil and causes specific and inexcusable harms, but in case like so many you just don't care about those harms, I've just explained to you why for entirely selfish reasons you should not use it.
If you're in a position where your boss is forcing you to use it, my condolences. I suggest leaning into its failures instead of trying to get the most out of it, and as much as possible, showing your boss very clearly how it wastes your time and makes things slower. Also, point out the dangers of legal liability for its mistakes, and make sure your boss is aware of the degree to which any of your AI-eager coworkers are producing low-quality work that harms organizational goals.
Also, if you've read this far and aren't yet of an anarchist mindset, I encourage you to think about the implications of firing 75% of (at least the white-collar) workforce in order to make more profit while fueling the climate crisis and in most cases also propping up dictatorial figureheads in government. When *either* the AI bubble bursts *or* if the techbros get to live out the beginnings of their worker-replacement fantasies, there are going to be an unimaginable number of economically desperate people living in increasingly expensive times. I'm the kind of optimist who thinks that the resulting social crucible, though perhaps through terrible violence, will lead to deep social changes that effectively unseat from power the ultra-rich that continue to drag us all down this destructive path, and I think its worth some thinking now about what you might want the succeeding stable social configuration to look like so you can advocate towards that during points of malleability.
As others have said more eloquently, generative AI *should* be a technology that makes human lives on average easier, and it would be were it developed & controlled by humanists. The only reason that it's not, is that it's developed and controlled by terrible greedy people who use their unfairly hoarded wealth to immiserate the rest of us in order to maintain their dominance. In the long run, for our very survival, we need to depose them, and I look forward to what the term "generative AI" will mean after that finally happens.

Just read this post by @… on an optimistic AGI future, and while it had some interesting and worthwhile ideas, it's also in my opinion dangerously misguided, and plays into the current AGI hype in a harmful way.
https://social.coop/@eloquence/114940607434005478
My criticisms include:
- Current LLM technology has many layers, but the biggest most capable models are all tied to corporate datacenters and require inordinate amounts of every and water use to run. Trying to use these tools to bring about a post-scarcity economy will burn up the planet. We urgently need more-capable but also vastly more efficient AI technologies if we want to use AI for a post-scarcity economy, and we are *not* nearly on the verge of this despite what the big companies pushing LLMs want us to think.
- I can see that permacommons.org claims a small level of expenses on AI equates to low climate impact. However, given current deep subsidies on place by the big companies to attract users, that isn't a great assumption. The fact that their FAQ dodges the question about which AI systems they use isn't a great look.
- These systems are not free in the same way that Wikipedia or open-source software is. To run your own model you need a data harvesting & cleaning operation that costs millions of dollars minimum, and then you need millions of dollars worth of storage & compute to train & host the models. Right now, big corporations are trying to compete for market share by heavily subsidizing these things, but it you go along with that, you become dependent on them, and you'll be screwed when they jack up the price to a profitable level later. I'd love to see open dataset initiatives SBD the like, and there are some of these things, but not enough yet, and many of the initiatives focus on one problem while ignoring others (fine for research but not the basis for a society yet).
- Between the environmental impacts, the horrible labor conditions and undercompensation of data workers who filter the big datasets, and the impacts of both AI scrapers and AI commons pollution, the developers of the most popular & effective LLMs have a lot of answer for. This project only really mentions environmental impacts, which makes me think that they're not serious about ethics, which in turn makes me distrustful of the whole enterprise.
- Their language also ends up encouraging AI use broadly while totally ignoring several entire classes of harm, so they're effectively contributing to AI hype, especially with such casual talk of AGI and robotics as if embodied AGI were just around the corner. To be clear about this point: we are several breakthroughs away from AGI under the most optimistic assumptions, and giving the impression that those will happen soon plays directly into the hands of the Sam Altmans of the world who are trying to make money off the impression of impending huge advances in AI capabilities. Adding to the AI hype is irresponsible.
- I've got a more philosophical criticism that I'll post about separately.
I do think that the idea of using AI & other software tools, possibly along with robotics and funded by many local cooperatives, in order to make businesses obsolete before they can do the same to all workers, is a good one. Get your local library to buy a knitting machine alongside their 3D printer.
Lately I've felt too busy criticizing AI to really sit down and think about what I do want the future to look like, even though I'm a big proponent of positive visions for the future as a force multiplier for criticism, and this article is inspiring to me in that regard, even if the specific project doesn't seem like a good one.

At its core, #CCSignals is an attempt by Creative Commons, a Silicon Valley-based organisation, to legitimise the AI grifts of its donors – Google, Microsoft, and Meta (Zuckerberg).
Creative Commons was always a thinly-veiled attempt at enabling Big Tech data farmers to get more data (that’s why the whole “open data” realm is so well funded/popular – open as in “open for business” not fre…

What do the #Trump|ist factions of capital want? Can that be squared with the interests of the #MAGA base? Capable state managers could potentially thread the needle, but that's all gone. Benjamin Braun and Cédric Durand about the US ruling class taking the reins to manage its own decline.

i was put in charge of three grandchildren for a few hours yesterday so we headed straight to ben & jerry's to split a milkshake, then explored the state theater (and even sneaked into a movie but later got thrown out for horsing around on the escalator), then i gave a nickel tour of angell/mason/haven halls, then they chased squirrels on the diag which took longer than you might think, then we looked in all the windows in nickels arcade. it all went slowly and well.

I've been using ClickUp for a few months now...and like every other productivity tool I've used over the last number of years it has its pros and cons.
It's got a lot of features but sometimes pretty basic features don't "just work" - and that makes me unhappy. 🙁
For example, right now I have some recurring tasks that will not allow an update to their due date manually. If I set a new date it resets back to the original date. Even more concerning is that this isn't clear from the UI.
The UI acts as if the change was successful but a page refresh reveals the change didn't save.
But the real reason I wanted to post wasn't about ClickUp particularly but about chatbots in general. They verified that my issue was an actual bug and created a ticket for it but the way I've been instructed to view the ticket status is by opening the chatbot, telling it I want information on my ticket (pasting in the ticket ID) and after doing all that I get this
5/6: Umm, no. I want to see an actual ticket please. I don't want to have to talk to a chatbot to see it. Chatbots really are great for a lot of things (during the free trial of ClickUp I found the chatbot quite helpful in learning how to do things without searching through docs) but this sort of "there is a direct record", please no. Or let me paste it in and do the lookup immediately - and provide a permalink so I don't need to chat every time!
I'm sticking with ClickUp at the moment, but one of these days when I magically get a large amount of free time, I'm going to write my own solution...I've only been saying that for a few years now. ;-)
#clickup #productivity #chatbots #projectmanagement #tasks

Energetic ($< 2$ MeV) Ion Environment of the Magnetosphere as measured by ASPEX-STEPS on board Aditya-L1 during its earth-bound phase
Dibyendu Chakrabarty, Bijoy Dalal, Santosh Vadawale, Aveek Sarkar, Shiv Kumar Goyal, Jacob Sebastian, Anil Bhardwaj, P. Janardhan, M. Shanmugam, Neeraj Kumar Tiwari, Aaditya Sarda, Piyush Sharma, Aakash Gupta, Prashant Kumar, Manan S. Shah, Bhas Bapat, Pranav R Adhyaru, Arpit R. Patel, Hitesh Kumar Adalja, Abhishek Kumar, Tinkal Ladiya, Sushil Kumar, …

Energetic ($< 2$ MeV) Ion Environment of the Magnetosphere as measured by ASPEX-STEPS on board Aditya-L1 during its earth-bound phase
During its earth-bound phase of the Aditya-L1 spacecraft of India, the Supra-Thermal and Energetic Particle Spectrometer (STEPS) of the Aditya Solar wind Particle EXperiment (ASPEX) was operated whenever the orbit was above 52000 km during 11-19 September 2023. This phase of operation provided measurements of energetic ions (with energies 0.1-2 MeV) in the magnetosphere, magnetosheath, and interplanetary medium. Three interplanetary coronal mass ejections (ICME) hit the magnetosphere during thi…

One year of ASPEX-SWIS operation -- Characteristic features, observations and science potential
Abhishek Kumar, Shivam Parashar, Prashant Kumar, Dibyendu Chakrabarty, Bhas Bapat, Aveek Sarkar, Manan S. Shah, Hiteshkumar L. Adalja, Arpit R. Patel, Pranav R. Adhyaru, M. Shanmugam, Swaroop B. Banerjee, K. P. Subramaniam, Tinkal Ladiya, Jacob Sebastian, Bijoy Dalal, Aakash Gupta, M. B. Dadhania, Santosh V. Vadawale, Shiv Kumar Goyal, Neeraj Kumar Tiwari, Aaditya Sarda, Sushil Kumar, Nishan…

One year of ASPEX-SWIS operation -- Characteristic features, observations and science potential
The Aditya-L1 mission, India's first dedicated solar observatory positioned at the first Lagrange point (L1) of the Sun-Earth system, carries the Solar Wind Ion Spectrometer (SWIS) as part of the ASPEX payload suite. Even before settling into its Halo orbit, SWIS has been providing nearly continuous in-situ measurements of solar wind ion spectra. Moments of the velocity distribution functions (VDFs) have been calculated to derive key solar wind parameters such as density, bulk speed, and temper…

Tonight our pop-jazz choir, Sing'n'Swing, had its first public concert in two years. We changed choir directors about a year-and-a-half ago. The concert went well. I sang a small solo, which also went well. A number of people told me I killed it. I took that as a good thing. 😃 Here's a post-concert photo.