81–90 of 113 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMO we need to stop referring to our bosses as "leadership" as a matter of course. It's just blatant propaganda.
"clanker wankers" has a nice ring to it
I can't believe people are actually asking chat bots for advice. Analysis? I understand, insights? Maybe. But putting it all together to make a strategy is their entire job.
There are people out there that ask larping redditors for advice on what to do in their marriages, not surprising they’d ask for advice on work related stuff. Most people are just trying to get through their day and go home. I don’t think it’s even necessarily bad either. It’s kind of like astrology, but less dumb. If you use it as a tool for personal reflection and to make you think critically about stuff, then it’s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Get yourself one of those popcorn microwave bowls: https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71mA19sd51L.jpg You get hot popcorn in ~2min without the need for a whole machine you will have to clean and maintain. I got one as a gimmick a few years ago and it has become one of our favorite evening snack
does this work better than putting a bag of popcorn into the microwave?
I think I got such a bowl for below 10€
Would exposing people to an obviously hallucinating AI help people here? Then they won't blindly trust it so much.
Let's take world leaders as an example. Suppose one starts making up everything they say on the spot, never researches or cares about facts, and just says things people like. Would this world leader be (a) less or (b) more trusted and influential?
Uh... Don't they already do this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since they hire, command work and fire, they kinda are.
No, they are managers; management and leadership are different things. Being a manager is a set of things that a person is authorized to do on behalf on their employer, "hire, command work and fire" as you said being examples. Leaders nurture their staff so that they work together effectively as a team to achieve goals. Very few managers are good leaders.
I saw (a black & white hand-drawn version of) this image [0] a while back and found it a really effective visual to easily explain the difference between a boss and a leader. (Here's an article that expounds on the topic and has some variants of the preceding image. [1]) I've worked with/for both types and the first type (boss) simply does not inspire loyalty or any interest in "going above and beyond" the bare minimum of absolutely required work from their employees.
The genuine leader type on the other hand often didn't even have to ask employees to put in any extra effort toward their job. Folks just generally went out of their way to try very hard to do their very best work (or damned close to it) for the true leader-type because it wasn't uncommon to see the "leader" right there "in the trenches" with them "getting his hands dirty doin' the work" right alongside them, and it just didn't feel right to not put forth at least the same effort he was.
I think (at least to my mind) the difference (in employee attitudes) is one of respect (leader) vs fear (boss).
[0]: https://kurtuhlir.com/wp-content/uploads/boss-vs-leader-tell...
I can't believe people are actually asking chat bots for advice. Analysis? I understand, insights? Maybe. But putting it all together to make a strategy is their entire job.
There are people out there that ask larping redditors for advice on what to do in their marriages, not surprising they’d ask for advice on work related stuff. Most people are just trying to get through their day and go home. I don’t think it’s even necessarily bad either. It’s kind of like astrology, but less dumb. If you use it as a tool for personal reflection and to make you think critically about stuff, then it’s…
If you use LLMs for that kind of information-gathering purpose, and then do the work to read and check the references, it wouldn't be any more harmful.
The problem is that LLMs respond personably, with a bunch of ego-glaze added on top, and people are too intellectually lazy to dig in any further.
If we changed LLMs so that they were much more neutral like the starship computer on ST:TNG we'd probably see less intellectually harmful behavior caused by their use, but the companies behind them want to sell ego-glazing because most people lap it up like capnip.
At first I was gonna say that if a person prefers the response of an A.I. to yours it is a reflection of your own lack of understanding, articulation, effective communication, etc. Then I remembered a passage from 'Never Split The Difference' by Voss (a book on negotiation) which went something like: If you can get a person to "You're right" you haven't done anything. If you can get them to "That's right" you've hit…
I think that people in general need to be better at receiving information that isn't perfectly pitched to them. It is a useful life skill to be able to understand the substance of someone's argument, and to look past the superficial way that it is presented. Postel's law applied to human communication.
Someone can be very frustrated and angry, and it can be upsetting to hear how they're presenting their argument, but they can be correct.
Another person can also whisper everything you want to hear in your ears, but lead you down the wrong path.
In a well-functioning society, I would think our senior leadership would be experienced and actually good at doing this and it would be expected of them. Flipping that around and blaming the subordinate for how they've pitched the message is backwards and probably not societally healthy.
Agreed, we are definitely ******.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is no single effect of AI on work quality. Depends on use and effort. Quoting the article... "Nearly half of senior leaders say they would trust a chatbot’s judgment over their own, on questions they were hired to answer." If they're using it like an oracle, then that is worrying, but how worrying - practically speaking - would depend on the baseline prior to the use of AI and how that compares with what the…
If you were gullible before, you will keep on being gullible. It's a moral panic. So what now? Karpathy, Carmack, Terence Tao shouldn't use AI? Or you want to require a license before you can use it? On bullshitting - yes, it was already a thing. Where nobody cares about truth anyway and it's a low trust environment where everyone just wants to take but not give, and then move on, yeah this will be the result. Those…
AI (supposedly) being a "10x multiplier"-type tool, if you were gullible before, then with AI assistance, you're at least 10x more gullible. ;)
I don't want to name this person because he's very nice and I don't want to make fun of him. But he's as close to AI psychosis as I've seen. He's totally non-technical, and someone set him up with Discord and OpenClaw. He has an entire "team" of agents - a CEO, a CTO, etc. What they're building, god knows what. But he just released a "podcast" interview with his CEO, setting up a secondary screen with an AI-generated…
