I think the example holds up fine actually. The difference is that in the second example the company decided that AI should be used here, and never consulted the worker about the process. That’s the key part in the whole thing, and this sort of thing has been happening long before AI I might add. Business people decide on some arbitrary timeline they pull out of their ass, and then it gets handed down to the workers who’ve never been consulted about the feasibility, then when the timeline can’t be met or the quality is shoddy, it is the workers who are blamed.

The AI itself is incidental to a more general problem that the worker is put in a situation where it’s basically impossible for them to do a good job with the time and resources available. What makes this case a reverse centaur is that AI is the driving force, and the human is expected to clean up after it, but without even having the proper resources to do so. The whole reason the human was in the loop in the first place was precisely because everybody knew you can’t trust AI, so there needed to be somebody to blame in the loop.

It’s low cost compared to trying to take out these satellites by conventional means.

That’s not the analogy he’s making. What he’s saying that if it is a human driving the tool and making decisions about when and how to use it, then it becomes a force multiplier for them. However, if you have the reverse situation where the tool is making executive decisions, and the human is subordinated to the tool, then it becomes a problem. What he is pointing out is that a lot of companies mandate using AI tools because it’s a hip thing to do, and then people are forced to use these tools in a way that doesn’t actually help them do their work. Like the example he provides where the person was given an unrealistic amount of work to do, and then AI hallucinated a bunch of shit that person had no hope of actually verifying in the time they had. So, the person just ended up being a scapegoat for a bad process.

thanks that’s a good talk

basically

It probably does, but I suspect they just didn’t consider the problem in the first place rather than the issue being that not having a persistent id is somehow extraordinarily difficult.

yeah probably, and you can tweak any distro to rotate it too, just most people don’t realize it’s a thing in the first place

oh you can do that with linux, even with systemd, just takes a bit of tinkering

tracking is a core function of pretty much all commercial software at this point

lmao

not necessarily, but it’s definitely easier to avoid having machine id without it

also to login with edge on top of that

unfortunately https://lemmy.ml/post/49710604

Imagine your computer has a secret ID number that Microsoft gives it when you sign in with your Microsoft account. This number is like a permanent nametag that your computer wears. Even if you use a VPN to hide your location, that nametag stays the same.

A hacker used a VPN to hide while breaking into a jewelry store’s computer system. But Microsoft helped the FBI find him because his computer’s secret nametag kept showing up everywhere he went online. They matched that nametag to his social media accounts and other stuff he did, and that’s how they caught him. Most people didn’t even know this secret nametag existed, and you can’t turn it off without breaking your computer.

perhaps you did?

Neither is it my first language, what’s your point?

today I learned that automation denigrates humanity

at least you’re self aware

It appears that you are in need of help with reading comprehension here because I was not talking about any particular government.

I do admire their unwavering dedication to the clown act though.