sabotaging their company’s AI by entering proprietary info into public AI chatbots, using unapproved AI tools,
This is counter-productive and can get you in big trouble IMO. I don’t even get what these are protesting.
or intentionally using low-quality AI output in their work without fixing it.
This is better and I think I would totally do this if management forced me to use AI. If they want to pretend using this thing is a better use of my time, I’ll give them what they want.
Fortunately I am working for an administration that has had rather tame expectations for gen AI use till now. They’re basically just like “experiment if you want, be careful and use what works for you”. So I just keep doing what I always did.
It doesn’t make sense because the protest is an invention.
or intentionally using low-quality AI output in their work without fixing it.
Translated: “our software tool works poorly and produces bad output. If workers do not work to manually fix the output, then they are InTeNtIoNaLlY sAbOtAgInG our business. Responsibility should be on the workers to fix our product’s flaw.”
I guess the story they’re trying to push is “People intentionally use bad AI just to give officially supported, good AI a bad name!”. And that’s quite the ridiculous claim.
This is counter-productive and can get you in big trouble IMO. I don’t even get what these are protesting.
This is better and I think I would totally do this if management forced me to use AI. If they want to pretend using this thing is a better use of my time, I’ll give them what they want.
Fortunately I am working for an administration that has had rather tame expectations for gen AI use till now. They’re basically just like “experiment if you want, be careful and use what works for you”. So I just keep doing what I always did.
It doesn’t make sense because the protest is an invention.
Translated: “our software tool works poorly and produces bad output. If workers do not work to manually fix the output, then they are InTeNtIoNaLlY sAbOtAgInG our business. Responsibility should be on the workers to fix our product’s flaw.”
That would certainly explain it.
I guess the story they’re trying to push is “People intentionally use bad AI just to give officially supported, good AI a bad name!”. And that’s quite the ridiculous claim.