AI Ethics Disquieted By AI Getting Dragged Into Quiet Quitting Mania

Are workers indeed quiet quitting, and if so, where does AI fit into this rising trend?

getty

Quiet quitting.

You have almost certainly heard about or seen news reports exclaiming that quiet quitting is here and amongst us all. Yes, indeed, quiet quitting is experiencing its banner headline pronouncements during a seemingly pronounced fifteen minutes of fame. Will the spotlight last longer than a short-lived fad? Will it have endurance and become part of our permanent lexicon?

Lots of vital questions abound.

I am going to unpack the quiet quitting phenomenon and see what makes the whole matter so notably significant right now. On top of that, I’ll introduce a facet that I’m betting most have not realized is getting dragged into the quiet quitting mania.

Hold your breath.

Make sure you are sitting down.

The latest dovetailing consideration involves the inclusion of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into the quiet quitting arena. AI is being added to the quiet quitting bandwagon, though not everyone is especially pleased with having AI become inexorably entangled therein.

This abundantly raises all sorts of AI Ethics concerns. We will examine how quiet quitting and Ethical AI are going to be at times partners and at other times foes. For my overall ongoing and extensive coverage of AI Ethics and Ethical AI, see the link here and the link here, just to name a few.

Let’s start at the beginning.

The catchphrase “quiet quitting” has taken on a life of its own. There is no singular all-agreed definition of what quite quitting consists of. There are differing viewpoints on what quiet quitting entails and there are even some skeptics that doubt it is pervasive (meanwhile, others would argue vehemently that it is everywhere and ubiquitous).

A typical definition of quiet quitting is that when a worker opts to not try their dandiest to do a job, they are quietly quitting while on the job. They are dragging their feet when it comes to seeking excellence or going beyond the stated norm for the work required. You are trying to seemingly do the minimum that the job requires and aiming to stay just under the radar of getting caught in doing so. The assumption is that if you are explicitly nabbed at doing quiet quitting, you will either summarily be fired or perhaps be dinged in your career pursuits at the company where you are working.

Quiet quitters are said by some to be slackers.

In fact, anger is often spewed toward quiet quitters. You see, the perspective is that a quiet quitter is cheating the company. If you don’t want to really do your job, you ought to outright quit. The idea of doing your job in a minimalist fashion to keep your job is unfair to the employer. The argument further goes that you are being unfair to your fellow workers. Chances are that if you aren’t pulling your weight, your coworkers will need to make up for it. They become the overburdened recipients of your unseemly and cowardly quiet quitting.

You are coasting through your work. Don’t sweat the small stuff. Don’t sweat the big stuff. No sweating at all. Do your job such that you are actually doing your job, albeit in the most minimal way possible.

In the minds of the quiet quitter, they often feel fully justified in this posturing (though they might prefer to not do quiet quitting and feel compelled to do so, as explained next herein).

Why would someone opt to do quiet quitting?

Lots of reasons come to the fore.

One basis is that you might feel that you are underpaid for the work that you are doing. The old line is that you are acting your wage. If an employer is not going to pay you to go beyond the usual expectations, why do so? Only suckers go the extra mile. Any extra efforts need to be rightfully paid for, and thus, your reaction consists of quiet quitting.

Another basis is that some quiet quitters don’t want to confront their employer and prefer to be passively aggressive about such matters. No one usually wants to make a foul scene with their boss or manager. Rather than confronting the work-related partial stoppage or slowdown (of sorts), you figure that you’ll skate along and see what happens. If your employer decides to bring up the topic, you’ll deal with it then, otherwise, you aren’t going to be the first mover in that regard.

Speaking of which, yet another argument for those doing quiet quitting is that the whole thing is the fault of the employer at the get-go. A good employer would make sure that their employees were happy and engaged. A good employer would ensure that the pay is commensurate with going beyond everyday expectations. Employees that are reacting by quite quitting aren’t the problem. They are merely a symptom. The true problem is unaware employers or simply lousy employers.

Quiet quitting is often referred to as a silent exit.

This implies that an employee is eyeing the exit door of the firm. When something else pops up that is better, they will dart out of there in heartbeat. They are simply lingering until that day arrives. You’ll sit on your hands and do just enough to stretch out your existing job until that dream job arrives on your doorstep.

There are even more reasons given for quiet quitting.

Some seek to quiet quit as a means of attaining a work-life balance. A firm might be anticipating that you will work your customary forty-hour workweek and in addition, provide additional hours to do late night and weekend duty. But some of today’s workers believe earnestly that doing those added hours is a surefire way to allow work to overtake your existence. Employers will take, and take, and take. There is no end to how much blood an employer will suck from your life.

As such, a worker has to draw the line.

If you want to have a working career and simultaneously enjoy life outside of work, you need to make sure that such a line is drawn. Your employer is unlikely to do so for you. The thought by some quiet quitters is that the only viable way to achieve a work-life balance consists of subtly turning away those incursions onto your personal time. Once again, rather than trying to negotiate this with your employer, which might get you blackballed, the other seemingly safer and less agonizing route consists of quietly quitting.

Not all quiet quitters want to be quiet quitters.

Some quiet quitters say that they feel trapped. They are between a rock and a hard place. They want to go all out. At the same time, they want to enjoy a life that exists outside of work. Whereas in the past it seems that many workers allowed work to become the entirety of their existence, the workers today are seeking to make sure that work does not preclude an enjoyable outside-of-work life.

As you might guess, the focus on worker attitudes and perceptions draws us right away into the renowned debates over workers of prior eras versus contemporary workers. Industry analysts often suggest that boomers and Gen-X fell mindlessly into the work-life balance trap of allowing work to overtake their lives. The millennials and the Gen-Z are proclaiming that they won’t allow themselves to become equally mired. They are mindful of such things.

Whether employers want to acknowledge it or not, the idea is that the latest generations of workers are putting a stop to being overworked. Quiet quitting is considered in that frame of reference as a modest or civilized way of doing so. Sure, quiet quitters could refuse upfront to take a job, or they could try to explicitly emphasize the importance of a work-life balance, but all of this can be risky. You still need to have income and put food on the table.

Work-to-rule is an oft-cited salient mantra on these considerations.

A usual definition of work-to-rule is that you will willingly work as per the hours that you are strictly required to work, and no more. A forty-hour week job should mean that you will work forty hours. Plain and simple. Working for example during stated hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. is what you will do. Do not expect or assume that you will work after the stated required hours. That is an unfair and unsavory encroachment onto your personal time.

Notice that the quiet quitting has a lot of flotsams in it from a definitional angle.

Consider these two elements:

Number of hours — You might argue that quiet quitting consists of not going beyond the required number of hours for your work efforts
Effort of your hours — Some insist that quiet quitting consists of not going beyond the minimal expectations associated within the hours that you are supposed to be working.

Which one is it?

Some say it is both. Specifically, you aren’t going to go beyond the minimum number of hours required for the job, plus you will only put in the minimal amount of effort required to perform the job.

Business theorists claim that all of this is really an issue entailing worker engagement. Employers that have good leadership will find ways to get and keep workers engaged. Those employers with inadequate leadership will allow their employees to become disengaged.

Jumble these notions together and let’s see what we can come up with (these are each a possible way to explain or elucidate quiet quitting):

Employers not engaging — Quiet quitters are disengaged workers that are doing the minimum required as a result of employers that aren’t sufficiently engaging their workforce, or
Employers overlooking — Quiet quitters are engaged workers that are simply setting reasonable boundaries to avoid worker burnout and attain a work-life balance that their employers are overlooking, or
Workers as slackers — Quiet quitters are slackers that insidiously underperform and usurp their employer’s goodwill while undercutting their fellow workers, or
Workers as surviving — Quiet quitters are sincerely avoiding rocking the boat and will do the basics of the job to keep the company going and yet not allow themselves to be exploited, or
Other

Stoking the flames of quiet quitting as a phenomenon has been a workforce survey done during the summer by Gallup that claimed nearly half of the respondents were supposedly abiding by quiet quitting. If around 50% of employees are quiet quitting, we assuredly should be putting due attention to the matter.

Some harshly criticize the survey, such as contending that the quiet quitting verbiage is being overused and serves as a boogeyman of sorts. Others emphasize that by talking about quiet quitting and making claims that it is pervasive, the matter will go viral in that other workers will tend toward quiet quitting too. In essence, workers will want to do whatever other workers are supposedly already doing. Fear of missing out (FOMO) will inspire more workers into the quiet quitting fold, as it were.

A self-induced hypnotic spiral of quiet quitting will arise.

Headlines have blatantly stated that the classic rise-and-grind as a commonly used worker mindset is now reached its end, finally being dead and buried. Today’s workers are not going to let companies monkey with their lives. Companies that are willing to deal with workers in a true work-life balance fashion and that pay commensurate with exceptional work will not experience very much quiet quitting.

Those employers that aren’t so savvy will find themselves riddled with quiet quitters.

You might be wondering whether it matters that a firm might be riddled with quiet quitters.

If a firm is perhaps the same with or without quiet quitters, the whole lollapalooza seems more noise than substance. Allow quiet quitters to do their thing. Work gets done. The wheels of the firm keep churning along. Maybe the quiet quitters will decide to up their game. Other quiet quitters will opt to leave the company and “the problem” seems to be solved (well, not likely, as the odds are that the replacement workers will go into the quiet quitting mode too).

The argument of why quiet quitting is particularly bad consists of a principled twofold concern:

Bad for employers — Employers are presumably not going to be as efficient and effective as they were if they were absent of quiet quitters
Bad for workers — Workers that are quiet quitting are continually on edge of being discovered as quiet quitters for which the repercussions are added stress in their lives overall and those assumed benefits of walking the fine line of quiet quitting are probably getting undermined anyway

Consumers or those that otherwise receive or encounter the services and products of firms that are replete with quiet quitters are seemingly at risk related to those services and products. You might vaguely know the adage that you don’t want to buy a car that came off the production assembly line at the end of a Friday afternoon work shift. A major qualm is that the car was hastily put together and you might suffer the consequences when bolts come undone, or the tires later fall off.

In that same vein, the worry is that quiet quitters that are doing the minimum required might be missing the mark. Who is to say what the minimum is to ensure proper safety and quality? Perhaps the worker doing the minimum is below an adequate minimum. If they were working toward a goal that was above the minimum, it would seem that the “worst case” is that they end up at the minimum. When the topmost goal is in fact the minimum, one shudders to think of how far below that target a worker might end up.

Is all of this talk about quiet quitters a new phenomenon?

You would be hard-pressed to say yes to that question. Any cursory glance at the history of business will showcase that there have been quiet quitters and handwringing about quiet quitting for nearly the length of time that there have been employers and workers. Some even emphasize that all this is nothing more than a new name for an old wine (actually, some jokingly or smarmily substitute the word “whine” in there).

Maybe quiet quitting is catchier and easier to describe. Perhaps quiet quitting is more noticeable as a result of workers having worked remotely during the pandemic and they are now having to come back into offices. And so on.

There is a somewhat bemusing outgrowth that the word “quiet” is getting attached to all manner of actions and efforts.

Here’s one that you might chuckle over or fret over.

Quiet firing.

That’s a new phraseology that suggests employers can fight fire with fire. If workers are going to quiet quit, employers will quiet fire. Though there are varying definitions, generally a quiet firing consists of an employer that purposely tries to get employees to quit. This might be done by making sure an employee has a dead-end job. Another approach consists of piling on work and making their work life a misery. Etc.

Yikes!

We seem to be spiraling downward into quite an ugly employer-employee putrid abyss.

Employees are going to try to do quiet quitting. Employers are going to respond by doing the quiet firing. But the quiet firing might be done across all manner of employees. Thus, employees that are stellar and going beyond the call of duty might get mired in the quiet firing. They in turn might decide that quiet quitting is their only recourse. The firm then ratchets up even more quiet firing. Each move prompts the corresponding countermove. An endless loop ensues.

Imagine the turmoil inside a company that is rife with quiet quitters and quiet firings. When do they find time to get work done? Can such a firm survive? Or must we accept that this is the future of the workplace? Workers warily eye employers and have to resort to quiet quitting. Employers eyeing warily their workers and have to resort to quiet firing.

A sad race to the bottom.

There is also so-called quiet fleecing. This is supposedly the situation of an employer that woefully underpays for a given position or role in the firm. The worker is being fleeced. Of course, not everyone agrees with this contention. For example, if the pay is egregiously low, presumably workers will leave the company and the firm will either cease to operate or be forced by market forces to raise the pay.

Now that we’ve entered into the realm of economics, some assert that quiet quitting is a factor associated with the existing economic and labor marketplace conditions. The job market seems to be up. Employers are cautious in letting go of employees. Workers are generally able to find jobs. All in all, this is said to imply that quiet quitters can come into existence. They can take on the risk of getting caught and summarily fired. They can bide their time while trying to find other work that they believe will be more engaging and satisfying to their personal goals.

The thinking is that if the job market was quite sour or grim, quiet quitters might find themselves at a heightened risk. They would not be able to play the quiet quitting game for fear of being fired. The job market would not subsequently absorb them. Under such conditions, they would presumably have to work far above the quiet quitting threshold in hopes of ensuring that they can keep their present job.

Round and round the quiet quitting gambit goes.

I said that the word “quiet” is catching on in other ways too. Take a reflective moment to consider the variety of quiet-oriented aspects of your daily life.

Are you the type of parent that is quiet parenting?

Are you the type of dieter that is quiet dieting?

Are you the type of exerciser that is doing quiet exercising?

We seem to have found lots of supplemental uses for this rising and unending quieting sentiment. Here’s your handy tip for the day. When you want to look keenly clever or insightful, just start adding the word “quiet” to the start of something. It is bound to get rapt attention. You might have started a whole new trend.

Good luck with that.

I promised at the start of this discussion that I would first introduce quiet quitting, which we’ve now covered in some detail. The next step consists of bringing AI into the picture.

I trust that you are eagerly awaiting an indication of how AI fits into this quagmire of quiet quitting.

Here is a teaser before we jump into the AI throes:

AI being used to detect if workers are quiet quitting
AI being used to offset workers that are quiet quitting
AI being used to replace quiet quitting workers
AI being used by workers to enable their quiet quitting
AI developers that are quiet quitting when developing AI
AI that quiet quits while performing stipulated tasks
Other

Sounds pretty juicy.

This also brings us to the realm of AI Ethics.

All of this also relates to soberly emerging concerns about today’s AI and especially the use of Machine Learning and Deep Learning as a form of technology and how it is being utilized. You see, there are uses of ML/DL that tend to involve having the AI be anthropomorphized by the public at large, believing or choosing to assume that the ML/DL is either sentient AI or near to (it is not). In addition, ML/DL can contain aspects of computational pattern matching that are undesirable or outright improper, or illegal from ethics or legal perspectives.

It might be useful to first clarify what I mean when referring to AI overall and also provide a brief overview of Machine Learning and Deep Learning. There is a great deal of confusion as to what Artificial Intelligence connotes. I would also like to introduce the precepts of AI Ethics to you, which will be especially integral to the remainder of this discourse.

Stating the Record About AI

Let’s make sure we are on the same page about the nature of today’s AI.

There isn’t any AI today that is sentient.

We don’t have this.

We don’t know if sentient AI will be possible. Nobody can aptly predict whether we will attain sentient AI, nor whether sentient AI will somehow miraculously spontaneously arise in a form of computational cognitive supernova (usually referred to as The Singularity, see my coverage at the link here).

Realize that today’s AI is not able to “think” in any fashion on par with human thinking. When you interact with Alexa or Siri, the conversational capacities might seem akin to human capacities, but the reality is that it is computational and lacks human cognition. The latest era of AI has made extensive use of Machine Learning and Deep Learning, which leverage computational pattern matching. This has led to AI systems that have the appearance of human-like proclivities. Meanwhile, there isn’t any AI today that has a semblance of common sense and nor has any of the cognitive wonderment of robust human thinking.

Part of the issue is our tendency to anthropomorphize computers and especially AI. When a computer system or AI seems to act in ways that we associate with human behavior, there is a nearly overwhelming urge to ascribe human qualities to the system. It is a common mental trap that can grab hold of even the most intransigent skeptic about the chances of reaching sentience.

To some degree, that is why AI Ethics and Ethical AI is such a crucial topic.

The precepts of AI Ethics get us to remain vigilant. AI technologists can at times become preoccupied with technology, particularly the optimization of high-tech. They aren’t necessarily considering the larger societal ramifications. Having an AI Ethics mindset and doing so integrally to AI development and fielding is vital for producing appropriate AI, including the assessment of how AI Ethics gets adopted by firms.

Besides employing AI Ethics precepts in general, there is a corresponding question of whether we should have laws to govern various uses of AI. New laws are being bandied around at the federal, state, and local levels that concern the range and nature of how AI should be devised. The effort to draft and enact such laws is a gradual one. AI Ethics serves as a considered stopgap, at the very least, and will almost certainly to some degree be directly incorporated into those new laws.

Be aware that some adamantly argue that we do not need new laws that cover AI and that our existing laws are sufficient. They forewarn that if we do enact some of these AI laws, we will be killing the golden goose by clamping down on advances in AI that proffer immense societal advantages. See for example my coverage at the link here.

In prior columns, I’ve covered the various national and international efforts to craft and enact laws regulating AI, see the link here, for example. I have also covered the various AI Ethics principles and guidelines that various nations have identified and adopted, including for example the United Nations effort such as the UNESCO set of AI Ethics that nearly 200 countries adopted, see the link here.

Here’s a helpful keystone list of Ethical AI criteria or characteristics regarding AI systems that I’ve previously closely explored:

Transparency
Justice & Fairness
Non-Maleficence
Responsibility
Privacy
Beneficence
Freedom & Autonomy
Trust
Sustainability
Dignity
Solidarity

Those AI Ethics principles are earnestly supposed to be utilized by AI developers, along with those that manage AI development efforts, and even those that ultimately field and perform upkeep on AI systems. All stakeholders throughout the entire AI life cycle of development and usage are considered within the scope of abiding by the being-established norms of Ethical AI. This is an important highlight since the usual assumption is that “only coders” or those that program the AI is subject to adhering to the AI Ethics notions. As prior emphasized herein, it takes a village to devise and field AI, and for which the entire village has to be versed in and abide by AI Ethics precepts.

Let’s keep things down to earth and focus on today’s computational non-sentient AI.

ML/DL is a form of computational pattern matching. The usual approach is that you assemble data about a decision-making task. You feed the data into the ML/DL computer models. Those models seek to find mathematical patterns. After finding such patterns, if so found, the AI system then will use those patterns when encountering new data. Upon the presentation of new data, the patterns based on the “old” or historical data are applied to render a current decision.

I think you can guess where this is heading. If humans that have been making the patterned upon decisions have been incorporating untoward biases, the odds are that the data reflects this in subtle but significant ways. Machine Learning or Deep Learning computational pattern matching will simply try to mathematically mimic the data accordingly. There is no semblance of common sense or other sentient aspects of AI-crafted modeling per se.

Furthermore, the AI developers might not realize what is going on either. The arcane mathematics in the ML/DL might make it difficult to ferret out the now hidden biases. You would rightfully hope and expect that the AI developers would test for the potentially buried biases, though this is trickier than it might seem. A solid chance exists that even with relatively extensive testing that there will be biases still embedded within the pattern matching models of the ML/DL.

You could somewhat use the famous or infamous adage of garbage-in garbage-out. The thing is, this is more akin to biases-in that insidiously get infused as biases submerged within the AI. The algorithm decision-making (ADM) of AI axiomatically becomes laden with inequities.

Not good.

I believe that I’ve now set the stage to sufficiently discuss the role of AI within the rubric of quiet quitting.

Revealing The Role Of AI In Quiet Quitting

Recall that I said this earlier about how AI is embroiled in quiet quitting:

AI being used to detect if workers are quiet quitting
AI being used to offset workers that are quiet quitting
AI being used to replace quiet quitting workers
AI developers that are quiet quitting when developing AI
AI that quiet quits while performing stipulated tasks
Other

We can next take a look at each of those avenues.

AI Being Used To Detect If Workers Are Quiet Quitting

There has reportedly been a tremendous rise in worker surveillance or worker monitoring as a result of a double whammy of automation.

First, workers are increasingly using automated tools to perform their work activities, particularly bolstered as a result of the remote work advent during the pandemic. The use of automated tools for work purposes makes worker monitoring that much easier, such as tracking the amount of time logged for work and other related facets.

Secondly, automation is being applied to either observing or at least analyzing work efforts. For example, a customer service agent might be silently observed by an AI system that is examining what they say and how they interact with customers. This can be undertaken in real-time or be performed after the fact to do an agent attitudinal assessment.

Into this trend comes the use of AI for trying to detect if workers are potentially quiet quitting.

Perhaps a customer service agent is not being especially friendly or overtly upbeat with customers. A facial and voice scan via AI might suggest that the worker is (shall we say) phoning it in. They are not seeking to provide exceptional service. If this is happening with regularity, and if their other productivity metrics are staying near the bottom of expectations, all in all, it could be a sign that the worker is doing quiet quitting.

Of course, not everyone agrees with this kind of assessment approach. A myriad of other reasons might account for what the worker is doing. Quiet quitting is not necessarily so easily ascertained. Furthermore, concerns are raised about the potential intrusiveness of such AI monitoring uses and whether either AI Ethics precepts are being violated and possibly veering into legally troubling waters.

AI Being Used To Offset Workers That Are Quiet Quitting

Another potential use of AI entails attempts to offset workers that seem to be quiet quitting.

Suppose a mortgage broker appears to be abiding by quiet quitting in their mortgage processing activities. An employer might make use of AI that tries to boost or bolster the work of the mortgage broker. This could be done by spurring the mortgage broker to work beyond the minimums or might simply have the AI directly perform parts of the work effort to get the work product to heightened levels.

One frequent criticism of using AI to try and offset quiet quitting is that this seems to be sweeping the matter under the rug. Rather than confronting or discussing the issue with a worker, the employer seems to be avoiding a needed employer-employee dialogue by using AI to make up for minimal work efforts by a worker.

The problem is bound to fester and grow. Whether the application of AI will be able to keep up with the worsening issue is unclear. Treatment of the symptoms is not getting to the root causes.

AI Being Used To Replace Quiet Quitting Workers

As an extension of the preceding indication, AI might be used to wholly replace a worker in lieu of merely offsetting their quiet quitting work efforts.

Some skepticism comes into this circumstance. Is the AI replacing the worker due to quiet quitting or is that just an excuse used to otherwise get rid of a worker? The banner of quiet quitting can potentially be exploited to justify worker replacement.

AI Being Used By Workers To Enable Their Quiet Quitting

Here’s an angle that not many have realized can occur regarding quiet quitting.

Envision a worker that wants to undertake quiet quitting. They might try to devise or acquire AI that can partially do their work for them yet hide the use of the AI from the employer. In a sense, the worker is seeking to work minimally or less so, meanwhile using AI to ensure that they are at least reaching the minimalist threshold.

A slew of thorny issues arises in this context. If the worker has found or crafted AI to aid in the work effort, why hasn’t the employer done likewise? Is there anything inherently wrong with the worker leveraging AI for their work efforts? Does hiding the usage undermine or undercut their employer?

Many such questions engulf this aspect.

AI Developers That Are Quiet Quitting When Developing AI

We turn our attention next to the making of AI.

AI developers can be as subject to quiet quitting as anyone else. You might naturally assume that all AI developers would feel well-compensated and not be stewing about long work hours, but this is not necessarily the case. As such, there are assuredly AI developers that are in the quiet quitting camp.

Okay, you might say, why does that matter?

Some are worried that AI developers in a quiet quitting mode might take shortcuts in devising their AI. For example, averting any semblance of AI Ethics or Ethical AI since this would potentially be considered above grade and not a requirement over the minimum effort stipulated by an employer.

Should AI developers be held to a professional standard that would require their best efforts when devising AI?

That is a hornet’s nest unto itself.

AI That Quiet Quits While Performing Stipulated Tasks

This last aspect entails AI that essentially quiet quits in its own way.

Allow me to elaborate.

First, I am not referring to sentient AI. If we ever do attain or arrive at sentient AI, you can suppose whatever you like about how that AI is going to behave. Maybe sentient AI would indeed quiet quit, particularly if humans are ostensibly enslaving the AI, see my discussion at the link here.

Let’s keep things closer to reality.

When referring to non-sentient AI, there is a matter of how the AI has been devised, such as whether it is using Machine Learning or Deep Learning that can self-adjust whilst the AI is in use. You could make the argument that the ML/DL might take a minimalist approach to whatever task is being performed.

Is this a form of quiet quitting?

Critics would insist that this kind of AI cannot be quiet quitting since it is unable to form a sense of intent akin to human intentions. Others might counterargue that though the intent might not be there, the actions are of the same or similar caliber, thus referring to this as quiet quitting is acceptable.

Conclusion

Rudyard Kipling, famed novelist and poet, expressed the opinion that more workers are killed by overwork than the importance of the world justifies.

Does this contention perhaps justify or rationalize the quiet quitting craze?

There are loudly proclaimed views that quiet quitting is a viable and sensible way to safeguard your mental and physical health. Others say it is a factor of workers being bored at their work. Some believe there isn’t any such thing as quiet quitting and it is a made-up construct that will fade from attention after having had its moment in the sun.

I could say more about this, but I believe that I’ve covered the minimum required. Whoa, have I just been overtaken by quiet quitting?

Only my AI knows for sure.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/lanceeliot/2022/09/21/ai-ethics-disquieted-by-ai-getting-dragged-into-quiet-quitting-mania/