[trunch]

Because this will definitely be used only to innocently tell off people doing 1/10 the work of everyone else, and not micromanage and hound people to increasingly unrealistic standards in already desperate conditions.

Safe to say you aren't in any position where every move you make will be watched by AI and analysed for faults so that your boss can scream at you more efficiently whenever you don't meet standards for their pitiful wages.

[_DeadFred_]

It's also dumb from a factory prospective. Our factories did time studies to understand things. What we learned:

Certain lines are primarily made up of barely functioning older people. No one else sticks around in those jobs. Think barely functioning alcoholic or recovering alcoholics that have nothing. However we would also get a few 18 year olds with no idea how jobs/work works and or zero accountability (they just ghost jobs).

From the numbers we should want to build our processes around the high performers. But we can't expand our base of high performers AND they are the most likely to just disappear and not easily have their productivity replaced.

So yes, it was correct that 10% of our people outperformed by 10X, and yes, it was smart to not try to improve that but to understand reality.

[tmpz22]

> From the numbers we should want to build our processes around the high performers. But we can't expand our base of high performers AND they are the most likely to just disappear and not easily have their productivity replaced.

You're failing to retain high performers? Are there perhaps methods for retaining high performers that you have not tried?

AI for Executive performance monitoring would be an interesting social experiment.

[infecto]

Do you really think this tool is making folks micromanage and abuse employees or perhaps they already would be doing that and this tool helps it?

There can be real value in these types of tools, its ultimately up to the implementation and I don't believe this tool will somehow make a happy work environment into an abusive one, the abuse will have most likely already existed.

[johnnyanmac]

>or perhaps they already would be doing that and this tool helps it?

Yes. I don't think we should ethically encourage the abuse of workers. And that official lens of marketing can and will shape who reaches out, even if the tool can indeed be used ethically. Framing is key.

As a tame example: think of the graphic design and marketing of red bull vs Monster. They have the same basic ingredients and purpose but that simple red bull design vs the in-your-face punk-esque vibe of Monster will change who buys it, how they identify with it, and even alter the perception of how it tastes.

[latexr]

> and this tool helps it

And that is bad.

> the abuse will have most likely already existed.

The abuse will get worse. The correct ethical answer to “the conditions are bad” is “improve the conditions” not “make them worse”.

[rimbo789]

Absolutely I expect it to be used to micromanage and abuse. Yes those behaviours already exist that’s why I know a tool that enables them will amphifly them

[BriggyDwiggs42]

The incentive is almost universally to micromanage and abuse employees. Reducing the friction will increase the incidence.

[pluto_modadic]

picture this: corporate buys something (like O365), and is reluctant to end licensing for the bundle. So... if they're locked into a contract that includes management-abuse-as-a-service, enabling bad behaviors, do you think they'll back out of enabling that one abusive manager out of five? how will that impact the workforce?

[mjmsmith]

Maybe the implementation could include an option to show the worker's name.