If AI Lets Us Do More in Less Time–Why Not Shorten the Workweek?

原始链接: https://sfg.media/en/a/if-ai-lets-us-do-more-in-less-time/

AI's impact on work is fueling the four-day workweek debate. Convictional's CEO, Roger Kirkness, successfully implemented a 32-hour week, leveraging AI to boost productivity without pay cuts. This mirrors Senator Bernie Sanders' call for a reduced workweek, sharing AI's gains with workers and preventing job displacement. Economist Juliet Schor emphasizes that shorter hours are crucial to preserving employment in the face of AI-driven automation. While small businesses find four-day weeks easier to adopt, larger companies often prioritize investor satisfaction through layoffs. The concept isn't entirely new; the five-day workweek emerged from efforts to reduce unemployment in the early 20th century. Kirkness argues that AI handles routine tasks, freeing up employees for creativity and critical thinking. Experts champion focused, intentional work, suggesting that technology should serve humans by giving them more time to enjoy life outside of work.

A Hacker News discussion explores why AI-driven productivity gains aren't translating into shorter workweeks. Many commenters believe it's due to capitalistic systems prioritizing profit over worker well-being, using distractions like cultural issues and immigration to divide and conquer. Some argue that a 40-hour workweek is maintained to keep people occupied and prevent independent thought, not necessarily for actual productivity. Counterarguments include the need for economic growth and the "lump of labor fallacy." Others point out that shortened workweeks often equate to pay cuts, and the lack of worker leverage prevents negotiation. Some noted that technology has already shortened the work week to some degree but not in a way that has been enjoyed. Some highlighted the impact of strong unions in other countries, in addition to the existence of labor laws in countries outside the US, while others noted that they find unions corrupt. There's a general consensus that systemic change, potentially through policy and collective bargaining, is necessary to achieve a shorter workweek.

This question is increasingly central to debates about the future of work and closely tied to the growing interest in the four-day workweek. According to Convictional CEO Roger Kirkness, his team was able to shift to a 32-hour schedule without any pay cuts—thanks to AI. As he told his staff, "Fridays are now considered days off." The reaction was enthusiastic. "Oh my God, I was so happy," said engineer Nick Wechner, who noted how much more quickly he could work using AI tools.

The issue is also being raised at a higher level. Senator Bernie Sanders recently brought it up on Joe Rogan’s podcast: "You’re a worker, and your productivity is increasing because of AI. Instead of throwing you out on the street, I’m going to reduce your workweek to 32 hours." Sanders has already introduced a bill proposing a four-day workweek, though it stands little chance in the current Congress.

The idea isn’t to cut jobs, but to share the gains from new technologies—giving workers some of their time back. This not only eases fears about automation but also encourages people to use AI productively. According to economist Juliet Schor, author of Four Days a Week and lead researcher for the international 4DWG project, AI has become a central topic of discussion among supporters of shorter working hours: "If large language models like ChatGPT can replace millions of well-paying jobs, we need to plan ahead. Reducing working hours is a powerful way to preserve employment."

Implementation depends on the scale of the business. Experts say small companies find it easier to adopt a four-day week, while large firms are more likely to opt for layoffs to satisfy investors. But the concept itself is not new. In the early 20th century, the argument for reducing unemployment helped push through the five-day workweek—something that was once seen as a radical innovation.

AI does accelerate routine tasks like writing code, Kirkness notes, but complex problems still require thinking, creativity, and a deep understanding of the customer. His approach: fewer hours, more intentionality. "The only things that will matter in the future of work are creativity, human judgment, emotional intelligence, the ability to formulate good prompts, and deep knowledge of the customer domain," he wrote in a message to employees. "And none of those skills depend on how many hours you work."

The same idea—less hustle, more depth—is championed by Cal Newport, author of *Slow Productivity*. His concept centers not on speeding up, but on slowing down with purpose. And the broader message is increasingly framed as a matter of fairness: technology should serve people, not the other way around.