if it all worked out (press x for doubt) but ignoring that, if it did, as Bertrand Russell pointed out in 1934 (In Praise of Idleness) , a 50% productivity gain (his example) should result in the workforce working 50% less hours for the same pay.
this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2026
81 points (98.8% liked)
Europe
12029 readers
599 users here now
News and information from Europe πͺπΊ
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons), archive:is,ph,today (their JS DDoS websites)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm pressing π § for doubt on you. The social critique is on point but let's go over the numbers:
1 "+β50β%" = 1.5 (productivity multiplier)
1 "ββ50β%" = 0.5 (time multiplier)
1.5 Γ 0.5 = 0.75 β 1
A workforce working 50 % fewer hours but doing 50 % more work per hour would only get 75 % of the original work done. The actual amount to cut work time by to compensate for a 50% productivity gain is β or 33.3Μ %.
Bertrand Russell was a mathematician and logician first and foremost. He wouldn't allow such a slip-up.
Edit: indeed, see pages 16-17 of the archive.org copy of the essay, his multipliers are 2x and 0.5x, respectively.
They fucking fell for it. Seriously?
Yeah doesn't surprise me honestly. The current government is full of morons, who have only thought about cutting expenses and taxes for the last few years. Thats pretty much all they do. Its like a fixation or something.
Don't forget about handing over money to their rich pals and lowering their taxes.
π€¦
this is a surefire way to lose an election to the opposition.
βWe are not against the deployment of new technologies in a sensible manner, but we would oppose the use of AI if the primary motivation is to secure savings only,β said Simola. βWhatever the government decides on AI in the public sector transformation, the final implementation plan should not overlook what impact the changes will have on employees and on how public services are both managed and delivered to ensure quality and higher productivity.β
If AI can do the same job with equal quality, why would it be bad if the primary motivation is to secure savings only?
I'm not Finnish but as a citizen i would rather have my tax money spent on stuff that can't be automated then on stuff that can.
Because if your prime factor to optimize for is cost savings "AI can do the same job equally well but cheaper" quickly becomes "AI can so a somewhat worse job but much cheaper", then becomes "AI does quite a shitty job, but that's what we have to live with now as we laid off all workers to save money"...
(Also thanks to capitalism it then continues with "Now that AI is the only option in that sector, let's raise prices to increase our profit margin".)
That's why I emphasized if, there are plenty ways to get lower quality with human employees aswell.
I don't really understand the last paragraph, its a government so they don't have a profit margin?
Profit cannot come before people. Otherwise Finland becomes America.
I agree, but the article is about the Finnish government, unless there is something I don't know they weren't making any profit to begin with.
They're just trying to spend less, which is functionally the same.
Assuming the income stays the same
Corporations spend less = shareholders get richer
Governments spend less = other services get funded more, national deficit gets lower, taxes get reduced. Depending on what the government decides to spend the savings on.
How is it functionally the same?
Sure, if the starting position was 0 but that's not the case. They are trying to cut spending because they are making huge losses. The financial situation in Finland is tough right now, really tough.
its a government so they donβt have a profit margin?
As long as the government pays public money on jobs in the public sector there isn't. The moment that government tries to replace workers with AI βthat they definitely not build, train, probalby not even run themselvesβ there is a profit margin, for the AI companies. Also now for the first time the public money spend to provide public services is no longer going back the tax payers in the form of wages but flow out to private companies. And it's about AI so out of country, too.
I said the same in another comment already.
As with everything, same with governments shoveling millions if not billions into microslop products it should be open. Open source/weight AI is very capable nowadays so it shouldn't be an issue.
I don't expect the government to be able to go into fully training their own foundational model, but a few racks in a government building somewhere can run open source/weight AI for a fraction of the cost. And is fully sovereign too instead of sending it to some provider.
Public money shouldn't go to private corporations.
The profit here is for the AI provider supplying the service to the government.
No idea if the fins are based enough for this but i would hope they run open source AI.
Public money shouldn't go to private corporations.
If only our system was not currently being demolished in the name of optimization.
Because the alternative to saving money with AI is providing better services with AI - if it can be done. And the people to do that are the people doing the job.
Why are those mutually exclusive?
If a human clerk handling applications or something makes an error 1 in a 100 applications and an AI system has the same error rate but is far cheaper. Then quality stays the same.
Because now you exluded the option of having the employee choose which applications to have Ai process and which need human review - the option that delivers the most quality
No? Where have I excluded that option? If for normal volumes 100 employees are need to process. And with AI only 50 are needed, then it's still cost saving?
If we're making up numbers my point is that with 100 employees using AI you get 2x the quality than 50 employees using AI
I'm making up numbers because I don't have the actual numbers and 2x is easy for the example, insert whatever numbers you like.
The issue with that statement is that putting double the employees on a project doesn't always improve its quality.
If we go with the numbers we have been going with and a employee with AI is twice as productive then adding AI effectively doubles the time available. This only leads to a quality increase if work was being cut short. If each employee already got the required time necessary to handle a application with full quality then you haven't increased quality but the capacity. If the now increased capacity is far above normal volume it is a waste to have so much excess capacity.
Hardly, you need to maintain the same numbers to double check the work of AI. Haven't improved throughput, but this guarantees better quality
If we accept that employees spend the same amount of time as without AI but now the error rate is reduced then yes. I don't think that is the case but I don't have the numbers so who knows.