Bad example. If the toaster carbonized bread in 20 seconds it's defective, likely unsafe, possibly violates physics, certainly above the pay grade of a sandwich-pusher.

Taking responsibility for outcomes is a powerful paradigm but I refuse to be held responsible for things that are genuinely beyond my power to change.

This is tangential to the AI discussion though.

> If the toaster carbonized bread in 20 seconds it's defective, likely unsafe, possibly violates physics, certainly above the pay grade of a sandwich-pusher.

If the toaster is defective, not using it, identifying how to use it if it’s still usable or getting it replaced by reporting it as defective are all well within the pay grade of a sandwich pusher as well as part of their responsibilities.

And you’re still responsible for the sandwich. You can’t throw up your arms and say “the toaster did it”. And that’s where it’s not tangential to the AI discussion.

Toaster malfunctioning is beyond your control, but whether you serve up the burnt sandwich is absolutely within your control, which you will be and should be held responsible for.

No it’s not. If you burn a sandwich, you make new sandwich. Sandwiches don’t abide by the laws of physics. If you call a physicist and tell them you burnt your sandwich, they won’t care.

I think it depends on the pay. You pay below the living wage? Better live with your sla.. ah employees.. serving charcoal. You pay them well above the living wage? Now we start to get into they should care-territory.