all 20 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 39 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Refusing to use AI tools or output. Sabotage!

Definitely guilty of this. Refused to use AI generated output when it was clearly hallucinated BS from start to finish (repeatedly!).

I work in the field of law/accounting/compliance, btw.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Maybe it's also considered sabotage if people (like me) try prompting the AI with about 5 to 10 different questions they are knowledgeable about, get wrong (but smart-sounding) answers every time (despite clearly worded prompts) and then refuse to continue trying. I guess it's expected to try and try again with different questions until one correct answer comes out and then use that one to "evangelize" about the virtues of AI.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Even better to do the correspondence in written.
    That way you can show others (and hope that someone cares) what you rejected and what they were trying to push.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    You can definately ask ai for more jargon and add information about irrelevant details to make it practically unreadable. Pass this through the llm to add more vocabulary, deep fry it and sent it to management.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    CIO even ends with talking up the Luddites — and how they smashed all those machines in rational self-defence.

    I genuinely thought this wasn't true at first and went to check. Its completely true, a fucking business magazine's giving the Luddites their due:

    Regardless of the fallout, fractional CMO Lars Nyman sees AI sabotage efforts as nothing new.

    “This is luddite history revisited. In 1811, the Luddites smashed textile machines to keep their jobs. Today, it’s Slack sabotage and whispered prompt jailbreaking, etc. Human nature hasn’t changed, but the tools have,” Nyman says. “If your company tells people they’re your greatest asset and then replaces them with an LLM, well, don’t be shocked when they pull the plug or feed the model garbage data. If the AI transformation rollout comes with a whiff of callous ‘adapt or die’ arrogance from the C-suite, there will be rebellion.”

    It may be in the context of warning capital not to anger labour too much, lest they inspire resistance, but its still wild to see.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 5 points 1 year ago*

    reviewing his history, i don't think this article was actually written by the sort of commie who ends up at finance papers then belatedly remembered to tone it down a bit, but you'd be forgiven for thinking so

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It is not sabotage if they are helping you not commit to a long term strategy that is detrimental to the company.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    Well, it is. It's not sabotaging the company, but it's absolutely sabotaging the initiative. (You can absolutely sabotage saboteurs.)

    That said, it's not sabotage because no action of those is actually sabotage. It's just people telling their managers AI is bad on the job, or failing to make it good.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    I'm quite sure a part of my last job loss was due to my open refusal to use AI, which extended to my criticism of the use of AI-generated code being added to a codebase I was expected to manage and maintain. Being careful is seen as friction now, careful is translated as slow, no matter how much time is spent fixing things broken by shitty generated code, fixing is seen as productivity more than careful production is.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    slow is smooth, smooth is fast

    the most productive way to do things is to do it deliberately and with good planning, at least in my field which is not coding related in any way

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    the most productive way to do things is to do it deliberately and with good planning

    Two things which coding is currently allergic to, as the rise of vibe coding has demonstrated

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • I can't help but feel like no matter how well-intentioned the actual recommendations (i.e. listen to your people when they tell you the AI is shit) this headline is going to be used to justify canning anyone who isn't sufficiently on board with wherever the C-suite wants to go. Even the generous (read: accurate) example of the historical luddites could be used to tar people as saboteurs and enemies of progress, which would give a callous executive license to do the things they want to do anyways to try and increase profits.

    This bubble can't pop soon enough, before anyone is truly reliant on the base LLMs operated directly by OpenAI and other bottomless money pits.

  • source
  • [–] [S] 8 points 1 year ago

    pile of youtube comments quoting the Beastie Boys

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    The Pivot to AI article says 31%, but the source says 41%. I think Pivot to AI just accidentally a digit a little bit.

    Edit: oh, 31% of employees, but 41% of Millennial and Gen-Z.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago