Replying to @⁨Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works⁩

Im surprised there are still people down on this first step of the ladder you’re lingering on.

Even most AI pessimists these days agree its useful as a force multiplier, allowing one person to do a bit more work in a given time frame, while still maintaining that its not competent enough to entirely replace a human in all but the most fringe cases.

“Its useless and acheives nothing” is not a realistic take and anybody who does any kind of office job and has used an ai in the past year would be able to tell you the same.

You can remain anti-ai while still being realistic that it can be useful.

Especially if you acknowledge that the product is not the root of the problem, the late-stage capitalist system its being built to serve is the problem.

Replying to @⁨NuanceDemon@lemmy.dbzer0.com⁩

“Its useless and acheives nothing” is not a realistic take and anybody who does any kind of office job and has used an ai in the past year would be able to tell you the same.

I have an office job and I can tell you it’s useless.

Sure you might feel like your being more productive but that’s only because your lowering your output quality.

Reducing cost by reducing quality has always existed.

Think about it this way, if you reach support helpline, would you feel like your getting the same quality support if it’s a chatbot?

Replying to @⁨Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works⁩

I suppose it’s useful for writing those reports that have to be written because financial rules, but no one ever looks at. Reduced quality in that area is acceptable because the chances any of the documents are ever going to be looked at are minimal, and if they are looked at, the work the AI did was probably good enough, even if it wasn’t to your normal standards.

en