Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it doesn't make sense to do a job you'd hate. Just be honest, land the job where you're happy.
But no one will pay me to watch tv all day
Not everyone is using AI for everything
471–480 of 565 posts
Re: Not everyone is using AI for everything
#472Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assume it's because he is seeking to pay rent, food bills, and other expenses through employment.
But it doesn't make sense to do a job you'd hate. Just be honest, land the job where you're happy.
In this economy it's really a luxury to nitpick about the job when there are bills to pay, mouths to feed, a roof over one's head is a must. The well of have a lot more options regarding this.
Re: Not everyone is using AI for everything
#473Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's tough to answer because you want to hedge for both an AI enthused employer and an AI hesitant employer with limited information about who they are and how they personally use these products. Have you considered just answering truthfully? Would you even want to work somewhere where you need to play a role and where they flip out when you say the wrong word you should've correctly guessed through mind reading? T…
Not everyone has that luxury when there are bills to pay and mouths to feed.
Re: Not everyone is using AI for everything
#474Earlier quoted context omitted.
The context was “Everyone does use the internet for everything today” and “most people don't even realize how the internet is running literally everything”. You don’t need the internet for your phone to have a battery charge.
They were providing some illustrative examples: most people rely on the internet for maps. If they don't have internet (because their battery is flat) they can't do xyz.
Re: Not everyone is using AI for everything
#475Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's a job, not a relationship. It's best not to confuse the two. A relationship is defined as two parties that interact. It's not friends, it's not romantic, and it's definitely not family, but a job _is_ a relationship. That said, GP is absolutely correct that you can fall into toxic relationships with your employer. Especially in the US where, realistically, we're forced to rely on our employer for too many thin…
You're being pedantic. By your standard, I also have a relationship with the DMV, and to avoid a "toxic relationship" (parent's language), I should be honest with them about all the times I rolled past a stop sign.
I agree with their "two parties interacting is a relationship". Hell, I have a "relationship" at the checkout as they scan my groceries. But it's not deep or long lasting, so as you'd expect either party makes near zero effort.
Secondly, they never said that every relationship requires perfect honesty in all things. I'm not volunteering to my checkout person that I will eat that party bag size chips in one sitting. They don't need to know and it's highly likely they don't care. I'll be gone out of their life in a minute.
However, your entire relationship with your employer is roughly based on "benefits for work". It is a recurring interaction, probably over a significant length of time. So it seems reasonable to be honest about how you work to avoid making the relationship toxic from the start.
But then I also agree with "Do whatever it takes to survive." and if toxic relationships mean you keep breathing, well it sucks but there it is.
I am fortunate to not be in that "survival" position so honesty works for me.
Re: Not everyone is using AI for everything
#476Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assume it's because he is seeking to pay rent, food bills, and other expenses through employment.
“I assume it's because he is seeking to pay rent, food bills, and other expenses through employment.” Fair enough, so if there were one “right” answer, that would be the one to give whether true or not. But here there is no obvious right answer. If the employer is looking for a particular answer, the poster doesn’t know what it is. In that case, the best thing to say is simply the truth, particularly when the truth t…
According to you. That's not the opinion of every prospective employer. Hedging is the right strategy.
Re: Not everyone is using AI for everything
#477On the post-grad job hunt right now - I note that most employers will ask in a technical interview or whiteboard interview "how are you using LLMs?" It's tough to answer because you want to hedge for both an AI enthused employer and an AI hesitant employer with limited information about who they are and how they personally use these products. I've been responding with a sort of long winded answer about how 'there is…
Re: Not everyone is using AI for everything
#478Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you already know what the inputs/outputs are, why should you spend days or weeks of your life typing it out rather than giving it in a well-specified and tested form to an LLM to get it done a hundred times faster?
The behavior of an LLM is not and cannot be “well-specified”.
Re: Not everyone is using AI for everything
#479I've noticed several companies replacing deterministic systems in their support flows with a LLM version that is slower and worse. Many interfaces simply aren't better with AI added
Unwise design. “It talks, CSRs talk, it’s the same thing”. The fact CSRs talk is incidental. Nobody contacts support to talk. Customer service is a kind of “exception handler” for that which you failed to automate. If your system exists, works and is legible, conversation is avoided.
People constantly call support for problems they can resolve themselves, where the product is actively trying to help them resolve the problem, and where copious documentation exists to communicate exactly how to resolve the problem. For many organisations these calls are >80% of support workload, which is why so many products make you complete a quiz before giving you a support form, or why you have to navigate a phone tree to get a person on the other end.
Most recent support call I assisted with was someone who was trying to sign in on a new device, sign in screen told them to check their email for a one-time code and enter it into the form on the screen. They called support because the email took longer than 10 seconds to arrive in their inbox, so they believed the code had already expired by the time it arrived. There was nothing in the form or the email communicating a 10 second code expiry (actual expiry is 60 minutes, not communicated in the form or email). They'd never actually tried to enter the code into the form and hit submit. Never clicked the help link. Just straight to the phone call.