La vraie surprise est que beaucoup de personnes semblent ravies de se décharger du fardeau de mettre leur pensée en mots. Voilà ce qui me paraît être le fond du problème, plus que l'outil qui le permet.
Les 3 sujets sont interessants, mais cet extrait dans le segment IA/traduction tape juste (comme le reste).
Et :
Ça veut dire arrêter de fétichiser le respect des formes imposées, et redonner de la valeur à une réflexion manifestement personnelle, en donnant aux élèves les moyens de l’articuler avec leurs propres mots. Ça veut dire les faire lire et écrire et parler en classe, avec des ambitions modestes quant au volume mais pas quant à la qualité. Ça veut dire leur apprendre à s’exprimer avec précision et clarté, au lieu de les entraîner à produire des dissertations qu’ils n’ont pas envie d’écrire et que les profs seraient ravis de ne pas avoir à lire.
In other words, giving creative workers more rights without addressing their market power is like giving your bullied kid more lunch money. There isn't an amount of lunch money you can give that kid that will buy them lunch – you're just enriching the bullies. Do this for long enough and you'll make the bullies so rich they can buy off the school principal. Keep it up even longer and the bullies will hire an ad agency to run a global campaign bemoaning the plight of the hungry schoolkids and demanding that they be given more lunch money.
What's "process knowledge"? It's all the intangible knowledge that workers acquire as they produce goods, combined with the knowledge that their managers acquire from overseeing that labor. The Germans call it "Fingerspitzengefühl" ("fingertip-feeling"), like the sense of having a ball balanced on your fingertips, and knowing exactly which way it will tip as you tilt your hand this way or that.
…
The exaltation of "IP" over process knowledge is part of the ancient practice of bosses denigrating their workers' contribution to the bottom line. It's key to the myth that workers can be replaced by AI: an AI can consume all the "IP" produced by workers, but it doesn't have their process knowledge. It can't, because process knowledge is embodied and enmeshed, it is relational and physical. It doesn't appear in training data.
…
Bosses would love it if process knowledge didn't matter, because then workers could finally be tamed by industry. We could just move the "IP" around to the highest bidders with the cheapest workforces. But Wang's book makes a forceful argument that it's easier to build up a powerful, resilient society based on process knowledge than it is to do so with IP. What good is a bunch of really cool recipes if no one can follow them?
Le fondateur du site de gauche "Frustration Magazine", Nicolas Framont, a promu son livre contre le monde du travail dans une interview-vidéo de "Welcome To The Jungle", le média préféré des jeunes start-uppers frustrés des entreprises à la papa. Qui n'a laissé la vidéo en ligne que deux jours, avant de la supprimer en arguant d'une évolution de sa ligne éditoriale. Aurait-il touché les limites de ce que peut être un "média de marque" ?
Denise Prudhomme's bosses at Wells Fargo insisted that the in-person camaraderie of their offices warranted a mandatory return-to-office policy, but when she died at her desk in her Tempe, AZ office, no one noticed for four days.
Beyond that, we should be thinking about proactive moves too—the time has never been better to advocate for a 4-day workweek, for instance. We’re just taking the AI companies, who say they’re in the process of ushering in a sublime productivity revolution, at their word! What better way to ensure all workers, not just CEOs, share the benefits of this presumably enhanced efficiency? While we’re at it, the same case might be made to agitate for universal healthcare again, too. The case should be obvious: In a world of hyperabundance, everyone gets access to free healthcare. It should be the very first thing. Anything else is immoral. Otherwise you get Elysium.
+1
If someone had designed a work regime perfectly suited to maintaining the power of finance capital, it's hard to see how they could have done a better job. Real, productive workers are relentlessly squeezed and exploited. The remainder are divided between a terrorised stratum of the, universally reviled, unemployed and a larger stratum who are basically paid to do nothing, in positions designed to make them identify with the perspectives and sensibilities of the ruling class (managers, administrators, etc.)—and particularly its financial avatars—but, at the same time, foster a simmering resentment against anyone whose work has clear and undeniable social value. Clearly, the system was never consciously designed. It emerged from almost a century of trial and error. But it is the only explanation for why, despite our technological capacities, we are not all working 3–4 hour days.
Devrais-je m'étonner que le monde moderne cherche à rendre productif (et donc exploitable) jusqu'à notre sommeil ? Non.
Devrais-je m'en effrayer ? Oui, mais je ne sais pas si j'en ai encore le courage…
La start-up américaine Prophetic développe actuellement un casque doté d’émetteurs à ultrasons pour la stimulation transcrânienne. Elle espère ainsi déclencher un état de rêve lucide chez le...