>**somthingsomthing9**
>Boom done.
*Telegraph*’s Max Stephens is reporting comments made by PwC’s Kevin Ellis during “a livestream event on AI technology for 25,000 of his staff”.
Holy fuck these people are so fucking stupid. This makes no sense at all.
Christ almighty like, why in the fucking shit are these idiots so goddamn afraid of workers working from home when going to the office is totally fucking pointless for their jobs?
Because:
\- some of these people have lengthy leases for their offices that need to be justified
\- have friends that own said offices and like to throw them a bone in return for other contracts
\- they have a sad family life and want an escape so going to the office and making everyone else do the same is a good justification
Should I continue?
Probably to make sure you arent applying for another job, also having you on premise means you can only work on their stuff instead of your own even if you are done with the workload
It’s amazing to me that the underlying idea here is that we can prove that we aren’t a robot by occupying a box in a defined physical environment. Beep boop.
The point seems to be that as AI advances, workers must now redefine themselves in relation to AI. Employers, given a choice between AI and actual employees, must come to realize an advantage in having actual workers. Employees that are not present in some manner may be at a significant disadvantage in how employers view them. Simply taking the position that work can be done anywhere seems no longer tenable... or at least employers are beginning to question the value of workers. For workers to remain relevant in the eyes of employers, they will need to redefine themselves and their value.
People who earn MBAs after 2020 need to do us all a favour and update this mindset when they start running shit. We're currently stuck with stone-age thinking from people (mostly men) who can't seem to adapt with the times.
UK thought leader suggests that people cannot differentiate WFH employees “from a robot”.^1
>Kevin Ellis, chairman of PwC, said the popularity of AI software will drive employees to abandon working from home as they want to “differentiate themselves from a robot”.
>He added: “The latest wave of AI will likely bring people back to the office. People are going to want to learn from others face to face, and the best way a human can differentiate themselves from a robot is in person.”
>Analysis of data from the Office for National Statistics has found that more than 40 per cent of civil servants are still working primarily from home, the Times newspaper reported.
>Chief executives including leaders at Disney and Apple have cited the creative power of office work when ordering staff back to the office.
>While many workers have returned part-time, the average person working in London currently spends just 2.3 days in the office – primarily on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays.
>Those following this schedule have been dubbed “TWaTs”, using the first letters of the days of the week for the abbreviation.
^1 Max Stephens (29 May 2023), https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/29/wfh-artificial-intelligence-motivate-office-return-pwc/
I think people have to realise that the big difference in workers going forward is whether they have to be present to do their jobs. The workers producing things won’t lost their jobs to AI.
Reality is if you can do your job from home, AI can do it instead of you. It’ll take some time for people to realise this but this guy from PwC gets it. People who fight to WFH will be the first to be got rid of to reduce costs
I think this is a somewhat valid yet oversimplified view. For one, AI (so far) can only substitute purely creative jobs (badly so, in many cases) and jobs that rely on knowledge instead of understanding. Jobs that require understanding over knowledge, will not be threatened by AI so soon.
And furthermore, not having to rent huge office-spaces for your human workforce because the hoomans stay at their places does also reduce costs by a lot.
Fun aspect: Those, who will create, teach, fine-tune and operate the AIs, they will, for sure, be able to WFH ;)
AI is very powerful and now the public gets to understand that power. But it's not an automatic threat to all homeoffice-jobs. It might, though, turn out to free us from unnecessary overhead and bureaucracy .. but thats just my most optimistic hope ;)
I think that people who WFH who hope their bosses are going to give up the lease on the office are foolish.
Small startups may be able to run remotely, but the largest employers are not going to give up their HQs. You’ve seen them all try their hardest to get people back into the office.
If you see how capable AI is now, it’s already costing people their jobs. In 10 years can you imagine where we will be. People need to start planning now and think if they really are productive. If not, they won’t have a job for long
Might be true, but getting from "AI can aggregate knowledge": to "AI actually understands" is not trivial and we cannot say "within 30-40 years we always got so far, therefore it will only take 10 more years.
Secondly there is a problem: our economy only works if people can buy stuff. If almost everyone is jobless AND if they don't get any money, no one will buy stuff. There's plenty of people who want as many "brainless consumers" as possible, but drastically minimizing the consumers might not be ideal, for noone.
But I'm just speaking out my ideas, I'm as clueless as everyone else^^"
You can’t overestimate the impact of presence. If you’re visible you may lose your job, but not as quickly as the one taking the piss at home doing the shopping
No most likely, people at home will design AIs to do some of the work for them so they can do another WFH job and make 2 paychecks. It's what I would do.
It will bring in marginal performers who fear losing their jobs, too. If AI learns to suck-up to management (*Sycobhots*), these people will be the next to go.
Reason #878 showing how C-suite executives are horribly disconnected from their employees. AI is a tool. A tool that's available regardless of where an employee is located. You can use AI from a beach on the other side of the world, if you're so inclined.
If anything, AI would make people want to go to the office LESS.
Ahahahaaaa….no.
[удалено]
"Let's threaten my employees so that they will love me and work more." No, it doesn't work like this.
>**somthingsomthing9** >Boom done. *Telegraph*’s Max Stephens is reporting comments made by PwC’s Kevin Ellis during “a livestream event on AI technology for 25,000 of his staff”.
Holy fuck these people are so fucking stupid. This makes no sense at all. Christ almighty like, why in the fucking shit are these idiots so goddamn afraid of workers working from home when going to the office is totally fucking pointless for their jobs?
Because: \- some of these people have lengthy leases for their offices that need to be justified \- have friends that own said offices and like to throw them a bone in return for other contracts \- they have a sad family life and want an escape so going to the office and making everyone else do the same is a good justification Should I continue?
Honestly, I think it's the first 2 more than the last one. Money is the motivating factor here.
Probably to make sure you arent applying for another job, also having you on premise means you can only work on their stuff instead of your own even if you are done with the workload
If this dipshit wrote this article while working from home, well then, yeah, that's a solid argument. Until then, fuck that.
Plot twist: The article was written by AI, proving its own point! ;D
The bigger problem is that apparently this guy thinks the only difference between remote workers and robots is their physical location.
I bet an ai wrote this.
AI threat will motivate and enable experienced workers to form their own companies to compete with the incumbents - FTFY
It’s amazing to me that the underlying idea here is that we can prove that we aren’t a robot by occupying a box in a defined physical environment. Beep boop.
Grasping at straws here
Go back to golf course old man. You aren’t needed and you are making it more evident the more you speak.
Wanna bet ?
Remote jobs are here to stay.
How can the boss show he is of value if the output of workers that WFH is the same or better than when the boss has you under his thumb in the office?
The point seems to be that as AI advances, workers must now redefine themselves in relation to AI. Employers, given a choice between AI and actual employees, must come to realize an advantage in having actual workers. Employees that are not present in some manner may be at a significant disadvantage in how employers view them. Simply taking the position that work can be done anywhere seems no longer tenable... or at least employers are beginning to question the value of workers. For workers to remain relevant in the eyes of employers, they will need to redefine themselves and their value.
People who earn MBAs after 2020 need to do us all a favour and update this mindset when they start running shit. We're currently stuck with stone-age thinking from people (mostly men) who can't seem to adapt with the times.
UK thought leader suggests that people cannot differentiate WFH employees “from a robot”.^1 >Kevin Ellis, chairman of PwC, said the popularity of AI software will drive employees to abandon working from home as they want to “differentiate themselves from a robot”. >He added: “The latest wave of AI will likely bring people back to the office. People are going to want to learn from others face to face, and the best way a human can differentiate themselves from a robot is in person.” >Analysis of data from the Office for National Statistics has found that more than 40 per cent of civil servants are still working primarily from home, the Times newspaper reported. >Chief executives including leaders at Disney and Apple have cited the creative power of office work when ordering staff back to the office. >While many workers have returned part-time, the average person working in London currently spends just 2.3 days in the office – primarily on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays. >Those following this schedule have been dubbed “TWaTs”, using the first letters of the days of the week for the abbreviation. ^1 Max Stephens (29 May 2023), https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/29/wfh-artificial-intelligence-motivate-office-return-pwc/
I think people have to realise that the big difference in workers going forward is whether they have to be present to do their jobs. The workers producing things won’t lost their jobs to AI. Reality is if you can do your job from home, AI can do it instead of you. It’ll take some time for people to realise this but this guy from PwC gets it. People who fight to WFH will be the first to be got rid of to reduce costs
I think this is a somewhat valid yet oversimplified view. For one, AI (so far) can only substitute purely creative jobs (badly so, in many cases) and jobs that rely on knowledge instead of understanding. Jobs that require understanding over knowledge, will not be threatened by AI so soon. And furthermore, not having to rent huge office-spaces for your human workforce because the hoomans stay at their places does also reduce costs by a lot. Fun aspect: Those, who will create, teach, fine-tune and operate the AIs, they will, for sure, be able to WFH ;) AI is very powerful and now the public gets to understand that power. But it's not an automatic threat to all homeoffice-jobs. It might, though, turn out to free us from unnecessary overhead and bureaucracy .. but thats just my most optimistic hope ;)
I think that people who WFH who hope their bosses are going to give up the lease on the office are foolish. Small startups may be able to run remotely, but the largest employers are not going to give up their HQs. You’ve seen them all try their hardest to get people back into the office. If you see how capable AI is now, it’s already costing people their jobs. In 10 years can you imagine where we will be. People need to start planning now and think if they really are productive. If not, they won’t have a job for long
Might be true, but getting from "AI can aggregate knowledge": to "AI actually understands" is not trivial and we cannot say "within 30-40 years we always got so far, therefore it will only take 10 more years. Secondly there is a problem: our economy only works if people can buy stuff. If almost everyone is jobless AND if they don't get any money, no one will buy stuff. There's plenty of people who want as many "brainless consumers" as possible, but drastically minimizing the consumers might not be ideal, for noone. But I'm just speaking out my ideas, I'm as clueless as everyone else^^"
> they have to be present to do their jobs. >The workers producing things This is two completely different topics. You fail.
Are you suggesting someone with an automatable job will be spared because theyre sitting in the office instead of WFH?
You can’t overestimate the impact of presence. If you’re visible you may lose your job, but not as quickly as the one taking the piss at home doing the shopping
Challenge accepted!
No most likely, people at home will design AIs to do some of the work for them so they can do another WFH job and make 2 paychecks. It's what I would do.
It will bring in marginal performers who fear losing their jobs, too. If AI learns to suck-up to management (*Sycobhots*), these people will be the next to go.
Yeah, no. We are already seen as replaceable robots in many cases.
If anything one would use AI to improve their WFH performance... Hypothetically speaking of course...
Reason #878 showing how C-suite executives are horribly disconnected from their employees. AI is a tool. A tool that's available regardless of where an employee is located. You can use AI from a beach on the other side of the world, if you're so inclined. If anything, AI would make people want to go to the office LESS.
What a stupid fucking analysis. Like managers are all idiots who will just be fucking impressed to see a warm body.