It’s not about the idiots using them, it’s about the idiots hiring them. If you don’t conform to the job market out of sheer stubbornness you’re a fucking dumbass.
The “experience” as you call it would be getting rejected by jobs that assume AI usage has become necessary.
There is no line in finding a job, it’s an existential need, you can’t live without food or water you can only buy from the money you get paid. So the “line” is moral. You’re denying job opportunities for morals 🙄…
That wasn’t the argument nor the question. The question is where do you draw the line. I gave an extreme example I assumed is on the far side of your line. Once we have that, we can do like a binary search and try to find it. Come on, man.
Alright, I do seem to draw the line further than your group at the very least, but equating that with an Auschwitz example? Not cool.
So yes, I’m perfectly fine using a garbage, insane, and very probably inefficient AI in order to get a job so I can live. I’m sorry you prefer to be against it all and therefore judge anyone else not in a privileged-enough position to have a choice in the matter.
I’m sure you all have cushy jobs, that would explain a lot actually. Would be fun to do a poll on that at some point…
If you would rather stay on your pedestals and judge people because you’re above and beyond them, as you have the choice to do so, that’s your prerogative.
I give people the benefit of the doubt because I know using AI can be forced onto someone by their company if it so happens that they don’t have a choice. That’s called compassion, otherwise known as empathy. Your entire group’s reaction to my post was one of attack and derision, so I am well aware of where you all stand wrt to empathy.
It’s not equating it with Auschwitz! You said, quote, There is no line in finding a job. No line! That’s a bold claim! So I picked a very extreme example to demonstrate that there, hopefully, is a line. It’s not equating AI to Auschwitz. It’s saying that your claim, that there is no line and you should work any job for money, is false. Once we establish that, we can then go into details about AI and where that falls. Please. Please understand how this line of reasoning works. We weren’t even talking about AI specifically yet in this sub-thread.
Your entire group’s reaction to my post was one of attack and derision, so I am well aware of where you all stand wrt to empathy.
This is funny because your opening here was calling us idiots in an echo chamber.
It’s not about the idiots using them, it’s about the idiots hiring them. If you don’t conform to the job market out of sheer stubbornness you’re a fucking dumbass.
So anything, no matter how foolish or evil, is acceptable so long as “the market” desires it? Complaining about it makes you a dumbass?
Or are there things that should be pushed back on? What is the line?
Also, is it “sheer stubbornness” is a collection of concerns and objections grounded in facts and experience?
The “experience” as you call it would be getting rejected by jobs that assume AI usage has become necessary.
There is no line in finding a job, it’s an existential need, you can’t live without food or water you can only buy from the money you get paid. So the “line” is moral. You’re denying job opportunities for morals 🙄…
There is no line? Absolutely nothing? You would work at an Auschwitz styled concentration camp for food money?
Because AI = Auschwitz, clearly an argument from a sane mind.
That wasn’t the argument nor the question. The question is where do you draw the line. I gave an extreme example I assumed is on the far side of your line. Once we have that, we can do like a binary search and try to find it. Come on, man.
Alright, I do seem to draw the line further than your group at the very least, but equating that with an Auschwitz example? Not cool.
So yes, I’m perfectly fine using a garbage, insane, and very probably inefficient AI in order to get a job so I can live. I’m sorry you prefer to be against it all and therefore judge anyone else not in a privileged-enough position to have a choice in the matter.
I’m sure you all have cushy jobs, that would explain a lot actually. Would be fun to do a poll on that at some point…
If you would rather stay on your pedestals and judge people because you’re above and beyond them, as you have the choice to do so, that’s your prerogative.
I give people the benefit of the doubt because I know using AI can be forced onto someone by their company if it so happens that they don’t have a choice. That’s called compassion, otherwise known as empathy. Your entire group’s reaction to my post was one of attack and derision, so I am well aware of where you all stand wrt to empathy.
It’s not equating it with Auschwitz! You said, quote, There is no line in finding a job. No line! That’s a bold claim! So I picked a very extreme example to demonstrate that there, hopefully, is a line. It’s not equating AI to Auschwitz. It’s saying that your claim, that there is no line and you should work any job for money, is false. Once we establish that, we can then go into details about AI and where that falls. Please. Please understand how this line of reasoning works. We weren’t even talking about AI specifically yet in this sub-thread.
This is funny because your opening here was calling us idiots in an echo chamber.
If you accept any abuse directed your way for a few coppers, you’re not a dumbass. You’re just craven.
But I guess the answer to the question I actually asked is “No, nowhere near as idiotic”.