The idea of a four-day workweek has captured the imagination of many as the ultimate reward for technological advances. Proponents argue that artificial intelligence (AI) will finally deliver the dream of working less while maintaining—or even increasing—productivity. It’s a tantalizing vision of the future: more leisure, less stress, and greater work-life balance, all made possible by machines that handle the heavy lifting.
But here’s the hard truth: companies have never willingly given their workers less to do when technology increases efficiency. Why would they start now? History shows that technological advancements, including AI, rarely translate into lighter workloads or shorter hours. Instead, they’re more likely to fuel greater demands for productivity, leaving workers scrambling to keep up.
Let’s explore why the AI-powered 4-day workweek is unlikely to become the “nirvana” some claim it will be.
The Efficiency Trap: Work Expands to Fill the Space
When technology improves efficiency, companies seldom say, “Great, now let’s give our workers more free time.” Instead, they see an opportunity to do more with the same—or fewer—resources. The Industrial Revolution didn’t give us a 3-day workweek, even though machines replaced much of the manual labour required at the time. Computers didn’t lead to widespread reductions in work hours despite automating countless tasks.
AI is no different. AI creates efficiencies by automating processes, analyzing data faster than humans ever could, and handling repetitive tasks. However, rather than distributing those gains equitably, companies often reinvest them into scaling their operations. They demand more output, raise performance expectations, and push employees to achieve even greater results. Workers end up busier than ever.
The “efficiency trap” ensures that productivity gains rarely benefit the individual worker. Instead, they fuel corporate growth and profit margins.
Cultural Inertia: The 5-Day Workweek Won’t Die Easily
Let’s not underestimate how deeply the 5-day workweek is entrenched in our cultural norms. While some progressive companies and countries have experimented with shorter workweeks, most organizations still equate productivity with time spent on the job. Even in industries where studies show that a 4-day workweek can maintain or improve output, management is often resistant to change.
Why? Because for decades, businesses have operated under the assumption that more hours equals more value. Breaking that mindset isn’t easy. And even if AI makes it possible to achieve in 4 days what once took 5, many companies will still cling to the traditional workweek out of sheer inertia.
Cultural resistance isn’t just about management, either. Many workers fear that cutting hours will make them seem less committed or easier to replace.
AI and the Labour Market: A Double-Edged Sword
AI introduces another complication: the potential to replace human labour entirely. As AI becomes more capable, the competitive pressure on workers increases. If employees start demanding 4-day workweeks, employers may turn to AI systems to fill the gaps—or eliminate jobs entirely.
In this environment, many workers won’t feel secure enough to ask for reduced hours. Instead, they’ll strive to outpace both their colleagues and the machines, contributing to longer hours and higher stress. Rather than heralding an era of leisure, AI may intensify the competition for jobs, leaving little room for conversations about shorter workweeks.
Profit Over People: The Capitalist Incentive
Let’s face it: companies are not altruistic. Their primary goal is to maximize shareholder value, and most are unlikely to embrace a 4-day workweek unless it clearly boosts their bottom line. For many businesses, cutting hours without cutting pay seems counterintuitive. Why would they pay the same amount for less time, even if workers maintain productivity levels?
Unless reducing work hours demonstrably increases profits, companies won’t adopt it voluntarily. And while a handful of forward-thinking organizations might experiment with 4-day workweeks as a way to attract top talent, these are exceptions, not the norm.
History shows that technological advances rarely translate into lighter workloads or shorter hours—they fuel greater demands for productivity instead.
History supports this conclusion. Employers didn’t reduce work hours during the Industrial Revolution or the rise of computers simply because they could. They did so only when forced by labour movements, government regulations, or public pressure. Without similar forces pushing for a 4-day workweek, there’s no reason to believe AI will make it a reality.
The Silver Lining: Could AI Change the Game?
To be fair, there are scenarios where AI could tip the balance. If governments step in with policies that encourage or mandate shorter workweeks, companies may have no choice but to comply. Similarly, if a tight labour market forces employers to offer more competitive work-life balance options, the 4-day workweek could gain traction.
AI also has the potential to create new economic paradigms. For example, if basic income experiments become mainstream, people might rely less on traditional jobs, making shorter workweeks more feasible. Additionally, AI-driven tools could empower workers to automate their tasks, giving them more control over their schedules.
But these scenarios depend on external factors—legislation, societal shifts, or worker advocacy—not on AI alone. Left to their own devices, most companies will use AI to extract more value from their employees, not to grant them more free time.
The Myth of Technological Utopia
The notion that technology will automatically lead to a better quality of life is seductive, but it’s a myth. Every significant technological advancement has promised to make life easier, yet most have simply changed the nature of work, not reduced it. AI is no exception.
Unless workers, governments, and societies actively push for change, AI will be used to extract more value, not grant more leisure.
Advocates of the AI-powered 4-day workweek overlook a fundamental truth about how businesses operate: they exist to maximize profits, not create utopias. Unless workers, governments, and societies actively push for shorter workweeks, the efficiencies created by AI will fuel greater demands for productivity and profits, leaving workers with little to show for the technological gains.
The dream of the four-day workweek is noble, but it won’t materialize simply because AI makes it possible. It will require deliberate action—by policymakers, labour advocates, and forward-thinking leaders—to turn that dream into reality. Until then, AI is far more likely to intensify workers’ demands than liberate them.
The promise of AI as the great equalizer, the tool that finally gives us back our time, is little more than a mirage. Instead of waiting for nirvana to arrive, we must recognize that technological progress alone is never enough to bring about meaningful change. The question isn’t whether AI can make a four-day workweek feasible—it can. The real question is whether we have the will to demand it.
Without that will, the future of work will look very much like the past: more productivity, more profits, and more work for the same—or even less—reward.
