AI in the Workplace

Not used it for anything, doubt I will tbh.
I understand the research angle but Google was perfectly fine doing that as it was.
The day I need something, or someone, else to think for me is the day to put me in a box.
The world is nurturing a generation of braindead humanoids completely reliant on a phone handset with the inability to think for itself, do even the most menial of tasks or even hold a basic conversation at any kind of level.

Glad I'm on my way out of this place and not on my way in.
Fair enough mate, and you do you.

Not this world, the world pre-chatgpt was doing the same, it's just been quickly forgotten. My generation was also supposed to be the worst at doing manual things, yet here we are, now it's the current one. Our tool of ruination was the internet, the current is AI.

It's not thinking for you though, that's the thing, it's (supposed to be) helping you make a better decision for things (with moderate success; then again, it's the same in the trades as well, so this tracks :lol:)
 

Been playing about with it for the last few days and can see some benefit but also seeing the danger of it as an underperforming staff member has just submitted work that is unlike anything they have produced before and this comes a few weeks after they were made aware that co-pilot is available on our system.

A quick check and theres lines copied and pasted directly from co-pilot. But no precedent to check these things or how to approach addressing this in our place. Unchartered waters.
 

There are useful things too.

Once you set up a RAG system, it kind of allows for custom training your own statistical models, which can be incredibly useful and significantly improve behaviour and reduce hallucinations. It also gets a lot of benefit from clear task structure that's built in a way that's token-efficient to parse, which is a whole discipline to learn in and of itself...

I have found it useful to help me generate the first 80% of work that I probably would have blown off as unimportant before. Stuff like status reports or transforming my notes into a design doc for others to use. Only the first 80% though, because it's still not even close to a replacement for a human that knows what they're talking about. It's also cool for doing some deep context searches of an unknown codebase (though it still hallucinates pretty heavily here, and you need to be vigilant).

Without RAG it's at best a teenager* on their first week on the job equipped with OG google search from 2002-2010 (when it was good enough to basically do the same thing AI is doing now for research, before Google needed to make the product worst to improve their monetization of it). You can make it do stuff for you, but you wouldn't trust it with anything except the clearest instructions.

It's a cool tool that people that are good at building systems can use to build systems differently. Clever people can now do clever things slightly faster (maybe, evidence is pointing to that it's actually slower than just doing it by hand). And purpose built statistical models will, shock, continue to do amazing things (see all the AI "breakthroughs" in sciences)...none of that's really new though. That's the same thing we've been seeing for decades, packaged differently.

People that are not good at building systems will build horrifying monstrosities with it that will require much engineering to undo in the coming decades.

It's also wildly socially toxic because it's being touted as actual AI and a replacement for people. And as noted above, loads of people are offloading critical thinking to it because it's easier and it does get things right a good percentage of the time. Especially simple things with well documented truth-based evidence that's extant on the internet.

Unfortunately, the important parts of life are rarely simple things things with well-documented truth-based evidence extant on the internet.

ETA: *A properly dim teenager that keeps forgetting the corrections you have to constantly give them.
Yes, it's incredibly useful but needs a driver to steer it in the right direction. And yes, it can be incredibly stupid which is exactly why you need a human to oversee it. It can provide a lot of value if used in the right places.

The people refusing to use it are putting themselves in a position where they have the least knowledge. That in itself leaves them open to being replaced.
 
Yes, it's incredibly useful but needs a driver to steer it in the right direction. And yes, it can be incredibly stupid which is exactly why you need a human to oversee it. It can provide a lot of value if used in the right places.

The people refusing to use it are putting themselves in a position where they have the least knowledge. That in itself leaves them open to being replaced.
I actually hard disagree.

I'd always choose to hire a person over use this tool. People think, they innovate, they go beyond what you told them to do - especially if you hire well, give good context, and show the path.

I'm using it because my hands are tied and I don't have the headcount because someone up the corporate chain thinks on a 3 month timescale and thinks it makes more sense for me to "do more faster" rather than teach the next generation how to think, model, and solve problems.

It's useful creating motion - generating emails, documentation, code that "works" (ish), not any quality worth doing.

I've never seen it come up with something that I don't think wouldn't have been better if I spent more time actually doing it myself and making it better. We just choose the shortcut because more is better or something.
 

I actually hard disagree.

I'd always choose to hire a person over use this tool. People think, they innovate, they go beyond what you told them to do - especially if you hire well, give good context, and show the path.

I'm using it because my hands are tied and I don't have the headcount because someone up the corporate chain thinks on a 3 month timescale and thinks it makes more sense for me to "do more faster" rather than teach the next generation how to think, model, and solve problems.

It's useful creating motion - generating emails, documentation, code that "works" (ish), not any quality worth doing.

I've never seen it come up with something that I don't think wouldn't have been better if I spent more time actually doing it myself and making it better. We just choose the shortcut because more is better or something.
They should work in tandem. You're not so much replacing humans as enhancing their capabilities. Humans have always invented new tools to make life easier. The internet, factories, the wheel. They all came about to make things faster and easier. AI is the same, it's just the new kid on the block.
 

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Shop

Back
Top