one CEO of a tech recruiting company suddenly found herself being inundated with Slack messages from employees that they’d clearly generated using AI, leading her to implement a new policy that strictly forbids the practice for internal communications.
One anonymous CEO got so fed up, they threatened to “fire the next person” who blasted them with unedited ChatGPT slop
“You weren’t supposed to send me all of this slop! You were just supposed to sell it to paying customers!”
No, no no. Actually the bosses knew exactly what they were doing. We all told them it was a bubble, a giant waste of time and money, but they needed an excuse to bonus themselves so they took it.
Never let lying corporate bosses and their reporters pretend this was a surprise or accidental. They let themselves get swindled and passed the cost onto their employees and customers, because that’s their MO.
Nobody saw this coming.
“But by all means, keep shitting up the codebase with Claude…” – the same managers, probably
“But but but! Who’s gonna burn all that oil & gas if AI data centres don’t? Won’t somebody PLEASE think of fossil fuel promoters!”
I started a new role at a multi national corporation a couple months ago. My “onboarding” to try to get caught up on a new project involved shifting through thousands of pages and slides of AI generated content that had been created on this project… Which ironically is about creating systems to try to make AI return more relevant results. The company have paid me a small fortune in the hours I spent reading material that held no value but to make someone somewhere look like they were being productive at some point in time.
I’ve been dealing with this at my job too, I’ve been trying to review technical documents “written” by another developer who is 100% using AI to generate the technical docs. I find the docs totally unreadable. I don’t have much in the way of review comments except “can you re-write this part in a more human-readable way”? * 1000. Then the re-writes happen but again it’s clear the prompt was just “AI, re-write this in a more human-readable way” and it’s still just as unreadable just in a different format.
.
But then again, I’m always unsure, are we at the point where we aren’t expected to be able to read these docs, or are they just meant to be ingested by a different AI agent to then use them to do something else ?I read a good article on this sort of thing a month or two ago… One executive got an several page email from a worker that was obviously ai generated. So he had his own ai read it and write a reply. This created a sort of table flip moment for him as he realized the company was paying for him and the employee and the tokens to generate both emails and nothing of value had been produced from any of it.
Don’t make me tap the sign
My son has gone back to college in his late 20s, and he is shocked at how many PROFESSORS are using AI for their lessons, and reading their presentations to the class for the first time.
He’s got one prof who told them on the first day that she didn’t want to teach this course because she didn’t know anything about it, but the original prof left, so they forced her to teach it. She’s learning the subject from AI at the same time the students are. She was reading the AI lesson, and got to a fundamental point that my son knew about, but she didn’t, so instead of explaining it, she just said to skip it. My son was appalled. It would be like studying math, and having the teacher skip division because she didn’t know what it was.
This is a major college in a major city, and it’s common.
@BarneyPiccolo @eicker
Why are so many of the points for Ai negative points?Imagine taking up a five-figure debt for this kinda shit lol
Five figure!? That’s a bargain. many are going well into six figure territory nowadays.
I taught at a small college in the early 2000s. It was the type of place you got an associates degree. I was hired to teach there a few weeks after I graduated from college. I had four days to prep for teaching a full courseload. Day classes and night classes. I had never taught a day in my life prior. I was a presenter at a museum previously. I had the fun job of staying one day ahead of my students. I would spend every free moment in the textbooks writing outlines for every chapter I could. Each class I would try to stay on topic and would sweat any time a question would come up, hoping I could answer. I never worked harder in my actual college career than I did when i had to teach. I did eventually get ahead and turned up to be a pretty good teacher. I was liked and respected by my students and peers.
I’m just saying getting thrown into the deep end is nothing new. Instead of writing outlines, you can generate them. However, I would agree that all that time I spent working is what enabled me to be a good teacher. I understood the work required at the pace it was expected. I’m not against AI, but I don’t think it belongs everywhere. It is a tool, not a panacea.
My friend (acquaintance maybe) who is a language teacher told me he used a “Resume Generator” to make his resume for him earlier this week.
A resume is the easiest shit ever, it’s one page, and you know all of the information that should be on it. This “language teacher” had to use an LLM to make his, because he’s a dumb lazy bitch.
I feel bad for any kids who end up with such a worthless instructor… I honestly hope he doesn’t find work, the kids deserve better.
About the only time I have been like ‘Yeah alright, I get it’ is if you have a sort of writers block. Get a rough draft spat out but then bounce of that, but do not rely on LLM junk for anything more than that.
That’s an awfully harsh assessment. People are being encouraged to do this sort of thing and as a language teacher why not get a first draft done for you?
The real test of whether it is pitiful it is if that person took what was given and ran with it rather than review and modify it.
If society is demanding people know how to use AI, it would be stupid of a teacher not to do so themselves, because they have to teach how to use it.
Once again, the key is how one uses AI, not if one uses AI.
They asked me how to modify a pdf because there was a typo
I said you just change the typo in the original document and then remake the pdf
They said they couldn’t do that, because they didn’t have the source document, because they made it with a “resume generator”
I said “What’s a resume generator? Like an LLM wrote it for you?” They said “I don’t know”.
So yeah, they just took the LLM output and ran with it, only changing one typo.
No one pressured them to do this, they did it of their own volition, and it is pathetic.
No one except for AI companies wants teachers to use AI, they’re explicitly supposed to stop students from relying on it, and this fool can’t even recognize an LLM while using it themselves
The only people pushing the use of LLMs are the people who profit from their use, moronic CEOs, and people who can’t understand simple concepts like sentience.
This teacher is a lazy dumbass. You can call me harsh if you want, but I see myself as a realist, harsh or otherwise.
I’m a university instructor and I definitely use AI to help learn material. But I write all the student-facing material by hand. And I use LLMs to check my work for errors, directing it to never offer a rewrite.
If I found out I’m paying thousands of dollars in tuition just for my instructors to be learning the very subject matter they’re teaching from LLMs I would be so upset that I might drop out and seek refunds.
I expect better from a university instructor.
Well, it’s hardly the only place I learn things. But if you can verify a fact that an LLM gives you, it’s still a fact.
Another fact: there’s a pile of human shit out there, too. So you get the truth by hook or by crook.
if I can verify a fact an LLM gave me I’m still:
- wasting my time needing to verify something from an inherently and unfixably untrustworthy source
- contributing to and encouraging the environmental destruction that LLMs cause
- reinforcing to big tech that LLMs are worthwhile
- increasing my mental dependence on LLMs
Sure, humans still lie and manipulate and fuck up all the time. That doesn’t excuse or explain the many flaws of LLMs.
Noooooooo. Current models are completely incapable of fact checking, despite any claims they may make. They get extremely basic shit wrong. For example, one popular model was recently caught telling people the wrong day for Election Day. Which is just so incredibly basic but they can’t manage it.
Soulds deliberate to me.
Unless getting the election day wrong was just one of millions of other things it got wrong.
If this LLM gets 99.99% of things right, but it got the election day wrong, that’s intentional.
Current models are completely incapable of fact checking, despite any claims they may make.
This is demonstrably false. Ask it to find the bugs in a chunk of code, for example. You can try that right now.
You always have to back up what it says with an authoritative source, but that’s not particularly tough to do once you have a candidate answer. And if it’s code, you compile it.
It’s arguably far easier than trying to sift through the mountains of SEO shit yourself.
I saw that happen in universities since 20 years ago already. AI just made that much simpler
If you put no effort into making something, why does it have value and why should people put effort into consuming it?
To be pedantic, value is in the eye of the beholder. Cost is how much goes into something, Price is how much someone wants to pay, Value… that is much more subjective.
Oil costs $50 a barrel to pump, priced at $100 on the market but when it comes to value could be seen as providing $20,000 of human labor.
Not trying to defend AI junk, like seriously people, just do the work yourself. But value is such a hard thing to quantify.
I think there’s a presumption from the industrial boom. A ton of textiles is useful whether it is gathered, cleaned, spun, woven, dyed and printed by hand or by machine. And that might extend to practical complex products like printed parts or buildings constructed by robots.
One problem, is the whole point of art is human expression. LLMs might be okay for design, except there’s art in design. AI is cultural appropriation extended to all human expression.
Another problem is a lot of the practical content made is flawed. Imagine if machine-woven textiles were holey and had structural weaknesses that tore open easily, so we made fabric by machine anyway and had seamstressed sew patches over the holes.
(Not all industrial age machines were perfect, and sometimes we had issues, which would be corrected by better machines, but in this case, human interaction is allegedly part of the magic, with recorded human work being used to train future AI models. But we’re being forced to worship the dark gods an awful lot for the meager blessings being returned.)
The third problem is machine thinking is unexpectedly resource intensive. We once imagined smart (conscious) agentic AI running on our PC or our smartphone. Now it takes immense data centers that gobble up more power and water than we have, during a water crisis. And the industry is so desperate about it they’re polluting the air like it were, well, the industrial age. While we’re in a pollution-driven climate crisis and mostly to make slop and faulty vibe code.
My own experience is that many, many “bosses” out there are not worth their hugely grotesque bonuses.
David Graeber might have something to contribute to this subject.
Most “bosses” in my previous company were selected by elimination. Competent people were promoted and moved to other parts of the organization and whoever was most senior got to be the next boss. Then when they failed at the job the next most senior person replaced them.
The Peter Principle: People rise to their level of incompetence.
Let’s say you’re a great salesman, the best in the company, so they make you a Sales Manager. Unfortunately, that’s not your strength, and you do a mediocre job, so you don’t get promoted beyond that position, where you stay for years, being mediocre.
Eventually, all the middle manager positions, and maybe even the upper management positions get filled with people who were great in past jobs, but only mediocre in this one, and the entire company settles into mediocre business management.
That’s the Peter Principle.
We could call it the Intel Principle. ;)
Thank you for explaining, today I learned
Failing upwards. Everyone rises to their optimal point of incompetence.
So I should stop doing a good job and I can fail up?
Man, I feel like a chump.
Unfortunately, that’s not what it postulates. Bedsides, it probably doesn’t work when all of upper positions are occupied for any foreseeable future
In theory, LLMs can help people do better quality work faster, but the productivity boost is modest when quality work is the goal. However, what seems to be happening to a great extent is that people are putting in a lot less effort and employers are now paying for salaries and AI tokens while getting worse quality work and slower progress in return.
And yeah, anyone who actually is trying to do a good job will get pissed at their co-workers half-assing it and pumping out low-effort AI slop while pawning work off on them. I think the only sustainable path forward with AI is instead of token usage being a badge of honor, there’s a culture of shame around AI where people put in a lot of effort to make sure nobody can tell they used AI out of fear of ridicule.
I use ai at work to handle low-value, high-effort bullshit.
I have to plan out a quarter ahead for my team of about 20 people. The expectation was to sit with them during multiple planning meetings, haggle out plans based on estimates and vibes for what we might be able to get done.
I hated that so I loaded all of our work data (agile) into an agent I created. I had it create plans based on historical data. I tuned those plans based on what I needed to. It would take me about two hours to do the entire quarterly planning. I sent it to the teams for modifications, fed those back through for final tuning. Then the agent would create and schedule all of the work, dates, assignments, set up all the admin stuff to make it go.
Took planning from probably about 60 labor hours per quarter to maybe 10.
Because my boss was a twat, he would not log into the system to view the plans, he could only read PowerPoint. I had the ai make his dumb ass slides from the content.
So you can use these things effectively. You can also make endless work slop. Keep in mind, work slop is not new. Ever hear of a “walking deck”? It is as fucking stupid as it sounds. You make a presentation about what you and your team does for nobody in particular. It is usually self promotional marketing wank that nobody ever looks at. Been a thing for ages. Now I can just use my work data to generate one if I wanted (I don’t want one).
This levels the playing field for all the busybodies who don’t really work, but do make a lot of slop. I hope they drown in it.
My frustration is that no one is validating AI output, at least on my team. We’ve mostly been working on CVEs recently. I won’t deny that AI has accelerated the process, in that instead of spending large amounts of time researching problems and applying the fixes manually, I can just copy and paste the answer it provides … But generally the answer is text like “updated the vulnerable package,” even though we haven’t (because usually the updated package isn’t available, to continue this example).
Many on my team are experienced and competent and even those people are just relying on the CI pipeline to validate for them, but so far as I can tell it just checks to see whether the vulnerability is mentioned in the configuration files.
Some of the team members are new. I’m 100% certain they’re just copying and pasting.
I am experienced. I was trying to do the job right by validating before I made entries, but I was repeatedly chastised for being slower than the people who are just copying AI output. My company hasn’t outright said but has heavily implied “if the customer [who provides the validation pipeline] doesn’t care, why should we?”
Yeah, LLMs are useful for delegating work that is labor intensive and bullshit in nature. I bet Peter from Office Space would have no problems with his TPS reports if a LLM were helping out.
there’s a culture of shame around AI where people put in a lot of effort to make sure nobody can tell they used AI out of fear of ridicule.
Earlier this year there was a whiteboard in one section of my office where some people had a tokenmaxxing leaderboard. Now it suddenly disappeared.
Or they could just actually not use it?
Using it and then obfuscating it’s use is just creating more unnecessary work to end up with a lower quality finished product.
It’s not really that difficult to just not use it, I’ve gone literally my entire life without it and nothing has been “too difficult”.
Thousands of generations have passed before me without using it.
There is no element of inevitability to this. You can just not use it.
But then I’d have to think about the task, instead of just rephrasing a few things.
Most people didn’t really care about their jobs before LLMs, and now management has basically given them permission to show it overtly. If it’s a bullshit waste of time, then just have the LLM do it. Nobody cares, nothing about our economy has been real since 2008.
There are people who should care
If you have a bullshit job then fuck it (except you’re still damagibg both the environment and the economy just to be lazy) but I’m talking about people in roles that are actually useful to society.
LOL
It’s like asking a rando to write a Rust program. Just not going to happen at the level necessary to be good. There are people getting very, very good results with Claude.
use AI for everything
get fucked
who could have foreseen this
The judgement:
You old senior developer is paid too much!
