AI makes it apparent that the only value some people bring to the table is that they have access to information that you do not. If now they fold that one advantage by just delegating everything to AI (which is in the same position as you informationwise), they will remove themselves from the worker pool soon.

▲

jerf an hour ago | parent | next [-]

If you're in a particularly fiesty mood you can lean into that. "If all you are is a proxy to an AI, exactly what value are you adding to the organization?"

While most of us actually commenting are obviously firmly on the "don't do this" side, for any lurkers who may have done this in the recent past or are considering doing it in the future, I would advise you to consider this point for your own actions. If all you are is an AI proxy, you are volunteering to step to the front of the firing line. For all that companies are just starting to recoil from the costs of AI, AI is still much cheaper than you are.

▲

tardedmeme 32 minutes ago | parent [-]

Organizations will become even less about adding real value and more about making the boss feel good about you.

	▲	andai 5 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		So the oldest strategy becomes the newest strategy...

▲

onlyrealcuzzo 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Try prompting Claude to fix an arbitrary code base better than someone who knows it, when you're a random non-technical person.

Try prompting Claude for legal advice and getting as good of results as Lawyer would if you're a layperson.

Try prompting Claude for medical advice if you're not a doctor...

I would hope these people are AT A MINIMUM screening the responses they get before passing them off. There's value in that if they are, as if they really are experts they can filter out bs and reprompt better than you likely could if you're not an expert - and in rare cases, who knows, maybe they could actually do it themselves.

AI is just going to speed run bringing out the best and worst in coworkers.

There have always been people that did the absolute bare minimum to not get fired.

AI will just make it more obvious.

And those people will be at the front to be let go when AI inevitably kills white collar jobs as it creates other jobs. They just might not be able to get one of those new ones because they rotted what little brain cells they had to begin with.

▲

embedding-shape 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> I would hope these people are AT A MINIMUM screening the responses they get before passing them off

The co-founder of Anthropic isn't even doing this when preparing statements to say after the Pope has spoken about AI, I think you're expecting a bit too much here.

Don't get me wrong, I definitely think that's a must too, but I also think people should test software extensively before deploying/releasing it, seemingly nowadays I'm in the minority about these sort of things.

▲

mittensc 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I find your comment a bit funny

> Try prompting Claude to fix an arbitrary code base better than someone who knows it, when you're a random non-technical person.

I've seen people employed working on some code bases that couldn't code at all.

> Try prompting Claude for legal advice and getting as good of results as Lawyer would if you're a layperson.

Some lawyers are downright incompetent and don't know what they're talking about / just want your money.

> Try prompting Claude for medical advice if you're not a doctor...

Some doctors are downright incompetent or malicious. You'd generally find that out by vising another doctor and finding previous diagnostic was bullshit and you lost time.

> AI is just going to speed run bringing out the best and worst in coworkers.

It does help people overall, the worst coworkers are probably going to still be there, just a bit better hidden.

The rest just have a new-age search engine to augment their capabilities.

▲

Tade0 23 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> You'd generally find that out by vising another doctor and finding previous diagnostic was bullshit and you lost time.

To be fair the human body is immensely complex. Every specialist will look at everything through the lens of their field, as at the very least they can rule out some things this way.

I had a doctor judge that my tonsils need to be removed, but for unrelated reasons I went to two other and both of them figured it's not as bad yet.

The difference between them was generational, as the first practiced an approach from 30 years ago, back when tonsils were indeed commonly removed.

▲

dominotw an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

ai good cos some ppl bad.

▲

throw4847285 18 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I've been calling it the "AI argument from misanthropy" but that's way more succinct. Thanks.

What really drives me crazy is how laden it is with negative emotions, and then people pretend it's just a rational assessment of the world. I was told growing up that if you're anxious or negative, it's just because you are smart and you understand how terrible everything is, while stupid people are happy. Seems like a lot of people got a similar message, and now they're shilling AI.

▲

an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

scotty79 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

AI good cos vastly better than most people at most verbal tasks.

▲

glouwbug 41 minutes ago | parent [-]

Those low quality lawyers and doctors are still vastly more capable than a layperson at verifying AI output

▲

mittensc 39 minutes ago | parent [-]

Those low quality lawyers/doctors still won't care enough to help the layperson.

So for the layperson, the AI output is still useful. They'll know to search for a different lawyer/doctor.

Tool just brings more knowledge to regular people.

It's like discovering search engine 20+ years ago.

	▲	glouwbug 3 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The whole point is that the layperson is not classically trained to know right from wrong which is the entire thesis of knowledge share. Even post doctorate students are required to have their work peer reviewed. It’s why anthropic and OpenAI put disclaimers below their chat prompts
	▲	Tade0 17 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> Those low quality lawyers/doctors still won't care enough to help the layperson. I had a pediatrician who I regarded as generally low quality until she correctly identified scarlet fever in my child, while AI and a doctor in training we knew didn't.
	▲	scotty79 20 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Recently some I know came up with a statement "AI is like opening borders, like abolishing visas." I think it's very perceptive and you can even view reactions to AI through that lens. Somehow both, the "immigrants" are taking our jobs but they are way worse than all of us at them. And the people from outside any given domain (art, coding, law) that advent of AI suddenly let into it, marvel at this land of opportunities, empowerment and self-reliance that used to be outside of their reach before that.

▲

cryptonym 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I mostly use it because I'm lazy on the presentation, not so much on the content. I provide full knowledge and content plan in my prompt. I do manual review & fix.

Someone informed can tell the content is generated. I don't really care, that's still my knowledge and I can discuss content in depth.