Female “professional” in an existential crisis after ChatGPT tells them they do make-work in adult day care
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (65)
sorted by:
To be fair, "people paying you to do things they don't want to do" describes a fucking huge chunk of jobs.
The real funny part is them getting bent out of shape about it, because their jobs are useless in addition to the other issues. Also, I think it just comes from a basic lack of understanding of how the world works, and a desire to feel more important than they are.
I know my job is being paid to do stuff so other people don't have to. It's still real work, and I don't feel bad about it.
Imagine having an existential crisis because a chatbot told you you're not the protagonist.
This is the lie that most women swallow wholesale to abandon being mothers though. They are sold the emotional appeal of “girlboss” where they are “making a difference” and “changing the world”. This is why so many suffer from main character syndrome and have a savior complex while telling themselves their hedonism is their reward for “making the world a better place”.
Meanwhile the ones that stay home to raise their kids are genuinely making a difference.
I really wish we could get society to stop lying to women about absolutely everything.
to be honest, it doesn't take much.
half of all women want to be a SAHM before having a baby. almost all the rest want to be a SAHM, quit work indefinitely, as soon as they have that first baby. the ones who genuinely want to keep working are <5% of the population. the problem is doubling the labor supply crashed a lot of careers, which forces both parents to work in most cases just to make ends meet.
but so if the guy can cover it, she'll happily quit indefinitely.
Kind of related, and not saying you're implying otherwise, but another huge problem is even among women who want to be SAHM, what percentage of those are eager to have 3+ kids?
One of the more effective ways out of our current predicaments are for solid families and good parents to start having more kids. At bare minimum, that means 3+. The percentage of women, even the "conservative" ones, who are chomping at the bit to have that many kids is very low.
They just want to have one or two kids, "hold serve" in their minds, and be glorified for it forever as if they've fulfilled their sacred duty to society as a woman.
That would mean doing something about mass media, which we all know, is literally another six gorillion holocausts.
It's wild. There was a story on SSM where a cheating wife literally told herself this to compensate for the guilt she had for cheating on her husband.
In the confession she wrote out (at the behest of her therapist and as a way to try to win back her husband's trust (spoiler: it did not work)) she explained something very similar to that, only in the inverse: that she did good things for her husband as a reward for feeling guilty about cheating on him.
Good. Cheaters should be tarred and feathered both literally and in other ways.
Dude nobody’s suffering. The woman in the post is taking the piss
The entire food industry is "I couldn't be assed to grill up a steak". Nothing wrong with a market of convenience.
The issue is that those jobs only exist because at the time it is cheaper and a more efficient use of the higher ups time to pay someone to do those things. AI in theory will eliminate those jobs because it simply requires them to add up how much of a thing they want and make it into an easily digestible form to make further decisions.
The growth of technology will eventually start to encroach on more and more jobs that are jobs of convenience. It will not start to replace a lot of blue collar work simply due to how much cheaper is will be to have a human pulling levers on a tractor than making specialized guidance software when you could much quicker take out entire data analyst teams with a single ai.
For the AI we have now, you’re right. A human is cheaper and more versatile.
I don’t know how close we are to AGI but when we get that, the math will change. Theoretically, all it takes to teach a “general intelligence” to do a job is the same effort or less that it takes to teach a human.
That means if you have a humanoid robot of the kind that already exist today you can get it to do any job by showing it how to do it, like how you’d show a new employee. Now the question is if the cost of the robot plus electricity over the life of the robot is less than the cost of a person.
Let’s say you pay a human $40k to work on a farm, running a tractor and so on. Maybe the robot costs $100k. Electricity for the whole year is certainly under $5k. So three years with the human costs $120k. Three years with the robot costs $115k.
Four years with the human costs $160k. Four years with the robot costs $120k
We’re all in trouble here. I’m not sure what the solution is. I feel certain the elites are doing this math too and dreaming of a day when both the farm worker and the farm owner/manager are AI and they no longer have to put up with us lowly serfs.
that plus "things they can't do" are literally 100% of jobs.
the issue isn't this though. the issue is that it's manufactured prestige, like when a guy with 2 yachts goes and buys a third. no one needs 3 yachts. it's physically impossible to use 3 yachts. they're doing it to socially signal to others that they can afford to waste money on a third yacht (upkeep alone is extremely expensive).
her job is no different. but instead of a filthy rich guy buying his third yacht to signal how much money he can waste, it's a filthy rich company paying a woman to do fake work to signal how much money they can waste on things like gender representation numbers.
That's the same reason I have staplers in 3 different rooms. It has nothing to do with the ability have access to a stapler while in different places without carrying a stapler around with me. It's entirely to signal that I can afford that third stapler.
i know you're being facetious but staplers are not like yachts. stapler upkeep is marginally zero. boat upkeep is crazy expensive, even if it's not running. it's astronomically cheaper to send your yacht from st james to monaco than having two yachts in st james and monaco. i can at least understand one yacht in pacific/io side, and the other atlantic side, as the major canals/straights really suck, but a third yacht is purely about signaling extreme wealth.
The difference is in employees who know how to add value to the bottom line and those who just know how to do what their professor told them to do 20 years ago.
The first group shows up, adapts themselves to the challenge, handles tasks outside their purview, and always tries to align their output with the needs of the company.
The second group shows up, falls apart at any sign of challenge, loudly refuses to do anything not in their job description, and always tries to pretend that their made up bullshit is the key to the companies success.
The later camp can't handle honest evaluations of their job functions. They think they're bringing "knowledge" or "expertise" into the firm. The first camp has no problem, they understand they're just a body, with a handful of unique experiences that might come in handy.