153
this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2026
153 points (98.1% liked)
Technology
87627 readers
4140 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
the only problem I see with that theory is that the employee count reduction might let them go below legal limits requiring more bullshit making it cheaper to pay more for Ai than the people it replaced because you have less regulatory nonsense.
Being below a certain employee count reduces worker protections
It does not change the cost of the slop (which is currently artificially tiny)
do some of those protections not involve expensive machinery (like sawstop saws)?
Wouldn’t something like that be machinery the saw company already owns?
Does slop not involve expensive machinery?
mostly thinking if you could shave off the administrative employees (like finance and marketing) you could fall below the limit)
The limit for what?
The bottom line is that AI is both more expensive and less productive than humans for at least 99% of tasks