Hacker News

points by paxy 1 day ago | 0 comments

This happens today with all technology. AI is no different. If your coworker refuses to use a computer or the internet there are no laws protecting them. Nor should there be.

[–] probably_wrong 1 day ago

There's a limit, though. Not only are there mandatory breaks for truck drivers, but also a maximum number of working hours my boss is allowed to demand from me. And even within those limits my boss is not allowed to dispense cocaine during tight deadlines.

We do have limits for how much work a human is allowed to do and, based on the experience of Amazon workers, they are due for some tightening already. I'm not seeing a clear case for AI but I wouldn't discount it entirely either.

[–] zamadatix 1 day ago

How would you see these types of limits applying to AI in a way that doesn't already apply to a normal tool?

[–] probably_wrong 1 day ago

I don't think the problem is whether these limits apply to normal tools or not, the same way it doesn't really matter that speed limits technically apply to horses too [1].

I imagine a solution would be a knowledge worker's bill of rights that declares the amount of output that one can reasonably expect from a human. You could add some measurements like "a knowledge worker cannot be expected to understand and take responsibility for more than X printed pages of work per day", with the expectations that if your employees are overworked then the accountability falls on you.

[1] DUIs too: https://www.loweringthebar.net/2026/04/still-illegal-to-driv...

[–] handoflixue 1 day ago

Should we also have a transportation worker's bill of rights, that sets the reasonable output that one can expect from a human? Would it be reasonable to set that rate based on what a human can deliver on foot, unassisted by any vehicle?

The whole point of a tool is that it increases the amount of output we can expect from workers. Otherwise we'd still all be doing agriculture, because the farmer's bill of rights sets the maximum output of a farm and there's not enough surplus for non-farmers.

[–] probably_wrong 22 hours ago

We do have a transportation worker's bill of rights. The vehicles may not tire but the drivers do, and therefore all truck drivers are entitled to mandatory rests. And self-driving cars (current ones, at least) have a similar issue: because the driver must be prepared to take the wheel at all times there's a whole bunch of "increased output" that they're not allowed to take advantage of, with a risk of serious jail time if they do.

IMO the key is risk: right now no one is taking responsibility of the AI errors (IMO by design), but the second we codify who's legally responsible for them we'll see calls for slowing down coming from those groups.

[–] zamadatix 1 day ago

Hmm, I suppose I see it the opposite - it's important these limits don't apply to one specific instance, just as the citation points out problematic things still apply if it's a horse rather than a car. That doesn't seem an accident/mistake, but a key part of making the limitation meaningful and well formed.

[–] archagon 1 day ago

That is not for you to decide!