I don't understand the mentality behind this. Is it just a case of "They're doing a thing so we'll do the opposite"? What exactly is the goal here?

Because people keep their fridges too long. They need to be able to remote brick them when they want you to buy a new one.

This will more likely result in collusion between the two. Your boss will subsidise your rent, but only if you live in one of his buddy's houses. It's company towns with extra steps.

Pretty sure that's just work.

I'm afraid I don't. I have seen it mentioned in passing in a couple other threads but I couldn't say where. I'm not in a position to contribute myself so I didn't pay that much attention unfortunately.

Pretty sure there is already at least one archival project going on, you'd probably be better off contributing to one of those.

I mean yeah, shit sucks rn and I feel like its definitely possible that companies that are more likely to implement AI are already worse to work for. Psych isn't really my field but I did briefly read the paper and it seems to me like they were pretty thorough. They used multiple companies in different locations and forms of AI, across a few variations of the theme.

Method 1: Three week study, same company & position, no intervention, just tracking correlation between AI use and social variables.

Method 2: Three week study, same company & position, AI usage intervention (as much as possible (test) vs none at all (control))

Method 3: Different companies & position, one-off 30 minute business simulation experiment, AI usage vs no AI.

Method 4: Three week study, same company, different position, AI usage intervention.

The paper is linked from the article, but here it is anyway: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/apl-apl0001103.pdf