This will be the pattern only the "privileged" workers will be able to afford.
Not using AI is similar to giving employees 20% of their time for any non-sprint work.
This privilege of No AI usage a day will lower the productivity, and rarely any companies will allow it (if they track your usage, which I am sure they do)
> Privileged workers are the ones who's employers are paying for AI while still keeping them employed in the first place.
I used "time" as privilege, not as AI as it's given as premise in the article.
You didn't even attempt to decode my comment with the article content in the first place.
> The end goal of every AI initiative is to lower headcount, if your employer is forcing AI usage you are digging your own grave
The "trend" nowadays shows other ways.
And also Jevons paradoxe in the works.
The more you use AI, the more work will spawn.
I understood your original comment just fine, I just thought that the point you were making was stupid.
By "trend nowadays" I assume you're just choosing not to count the 700k layoffs in tech sector since 2022?
Show me all of the new products Google, Meta, Amazon, Microsoft etc have "spawned" since force feeding AI to their remaining staff. 100 different permutations for sycophantic AI models and fact simulators don't count.
Not using AI is similar to giving employees 20% of their time for any non-sprint work.
This privilege of No AI usage a day will lower the productivity, and rarely any companies will allow it (if they track your usage, which I am sure they do)