I don’t really have a dog in this AI fight but try and do The Knowledge in London and tell me they would miserably fail an IQ test. Admittedly it’s not necessarily based on IQ specifically but you make it sound like they are idiots.
AI in the Workplace
- Thread starter Nymzee
- Start date
Those people who reject change because they fear that AI will replace them are right. Their fears will become self-prophesying as a refusal to upskill leads to a weaker skillset. Ultimately, those people will be replaced as more skilled workers enter the job market and take their positions. If people want to maintain and/or enhance their market value they need to stay relevant.
coollino
Player Valuation: £80m
Do you live in a management textbook?
Yes, the salary is worth it.
coollino
Player Valuation: £80m
Good lord
Yes, apologies. It was an unfunny response to an unfunny response and added nothing to thread.
Some people in here definitely use AI at work to cover up for being crap at their job.
Last week we had a large amount of changes to make to the way we do some core infrastructure to make things nice and secure for a very large rollout of a very large system. One of the directors was sat in the call listening to us liase with the relevant people, and whenever we ran into a hitch he'd take over the screen sharing and present him using Microsoft Copilot. It just hallucinated some Cisco IOS commands that do not exist and got basic networking wrong.
He's paid 3x what we are.
I've been in meetings where it's apparent that the questions are coming from LLMs. I've had a lot of fun asking people "what is the basis of the question" and watching them squirm.
Awful.
He's paid 3x what we are.
I've been in meetings where it's apparent that the questions are coming from LLMs. I've had a lot of fun asking people "what is the basis of the question" and watching them squirm.
Awful.
Fair enough mate, didn't know about that as I've never had an interest in London
, and it seems very much limited to there and the city streets. My experience with cabbies has mostly been those local to me and they are mostly illiterate idiots who drive like they have nothing to lose. The ones in Glasgow and Liverpool were decent and respectful enough, so on review my comment is a bit out of place.Sorry if I offended anyone here either, didn't mean to.
My C-level/manager also tries to do this, it's honestly fun shutting him down. We had to upgrade some systems recently and he, fully seriously, just asked chatgpt "how do I upgrade this?" and pasted us the answer and went "see, it's easy!"... Ignoring the first line of the answer which was basically "I don't know wtf your setup is, so I'll just give you the general gist of it" and that our setup is not what it found as there's more than one ways to set up the system itself. Shocked when it's not that easy, every single time. Honestly I'd count that as misuse at this point.
I was at a Microsoft conference about their new security centre copilot implementation for reporting earlier this year and that seems okay enough, but as with anything M$, it's useful so it costs a thousand to even have. The note taking and summary functions of most of those is very useful though.
At least you're not using it on here
A recent study from Stanford (https://stanforduniversity.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_4Mjwa0jWw2Pu3TE) found that people are often using GenAI to take intellectual shortcuts, thus giving them the appearance of greater efficiency. Unfortunately, a lot of the output is so bad that it requires more time to tidy it up than was saved in the first place. They also found reputational damage being caused, as colleagues tended to react negatively when a peer sent them AI-generated work, with this damaging their perceived competence and trustworthiness.
You do you though, obviously
It feels a bit of a baby and bathwater approach. We had OpenAI's Chief Economist arguing recently that ChatGPT was a consumer tool, not a workplace tool (perhaps in response to the MIT study showing that 95% of AI pilots didn't produce results). We've also had instances where it's been used in areas like law and healthcare, with often significant consequences. The latter is particularly troublesome in areas like mental health, where it's neither regulated or accountable for the advice it provides, which has been proven to be particularly bad. For instance, I read a recent paper looking at this particular example, and ChatGPT et al have no idea how to de-esculate situations. They don't follow any of the ethical guidelines that trained professionals follow.
I think there's a definite hype cycle with AI (indeed, I believe it's officially in the "trough of disillusionment" stage at the moment), and the talk from the industry about it curing cancer and all of that nonsense is clearly silly. But, we have a president regularly churning out AI-generated misinformation, the aforementioned issues around hallucination and/or simply bad advice, a technology that is prone to producing biased and discriminatory outputs (because it's trained on biased and discriminatory inputs) and so on, so it's clear the regulations aren't keeping pace with the tech. As you say, tech is largely agnostic, but humans are inherently flawed. Do we need tech that exacerbates those flaws?
Initial studies have shown the biggest users of the tech tend to be those with the least understanding of how it works. @Bkk Andy
*I study AI in the workplace for a Swiss university. As context.
Welcome
Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.
Shop
