3 ms·

Companies banning the use of ChatGPT level tools going forward will find the rules either flouted, subverted or the employees going elsewhere. Why? Companies t

by tjr 3y ago

Companies banning the use of ChatGPT level tools going forward will find the rules either flouted, subverted or the employees going elsewhere. Why? Companies typically have many rules that they expect employees to follow. Why would employees disregard these particular rules, or even quit because of them?

redmaverick 3y ago
simple reason. I can refactor the codebase in a dozen different ways in a matter of seconds and choose the best one to work on. I can a summon a large volume of unit tests, descriptive logging statements etc. I can also just dump the logs and it will 9/10 times tell you right away what the issue is and how you can resolve it. i.e basically you can do a lot of work in just a matter of hours. Once you taste the productivity increase by integrating AI into your workflow you will miss it if it is taken out. not mention you can build all the handy little tools in a matter of seconds that will make your daily life way easier.
- tjr 3y ago
  Employees have been prevented (by rule) from doing things that would make them more productive for a long time. For a trivial example, programmers who are proficient in Emacs not being allowed to install and use Emacs. I still fail to see why employees will now choose to disregard this particular rule, and either disobey or quit.
  - EFreethought 3y ago
    Honestly, "no Emacs" is one rule that would make me quit.
    - ParetoOptimal 3y ago
      So would I. Funnily enough I thought it might happen at a job in the past so I've thought through the "would you quit if work banned Emacs" question quite a bit.
  - ParetoOptimal 3y ago
    > For a trivial example, programmers who are proficient in Emacs not being allowed to install and use Emacs. I'm not sure how you mean trivial here, but not being able to use emacs isn't a trivial matter to emacs users :) > I still fail to see why employees will now choose to disregard this particular rule, and either disobey or quit. I fail to see why employees follow rules that make no sense rather than disobeying or quitting.
hxugufjfjf 3y ago
Because it quickly became a tool that was so useful that I feel I am doing my job better with than without now that it’s available. Similiar to how I would disregard rules and/or quit if I was not allowed to use my operating system of choice at work or was denied the use of a specific tool integral to doing my job (well).
- tjr 3y ago
  Ah, so you are not disregarding this particular rule, but you disregard all rules that you feel impede you. That answers my question, thank you -- this has nothing in particular to do with GPT tools.
  - meghan_rain 3y ago
    Arrogant software devs thinking this labour shortage of code monkeys will continue in perpetuity
    - sangnoir 3y ago
      What labor shortage? It's an employer's market right now, with a glut of high-quality candidates looking for jobs.
  - hxugufjfjf 3y ago
    No. I follow many rules, even if I like them or not. I picked one simple example of a rule I would consider a dealbreaker for my employment to illustrate how many people have already started using ChatGPT so heavily in their workflows that they would consider it detrimental if their employer took it away from them. But yes, it might not really have anything to do with GPT specifically besides it apparently being a very useful tool for a lot of employees, given that some would at least claim to quit their jobs over being prevented from using it.
    - tjr 3y ago
      Thank you again. I did not mean to claim that you disregard literally all rules, and I apologize for coming across that way. I find your explanation sound and reasonable. There are many rules that, even if not necessarily liked, are not sufficient grounds to do anything about. But sometimes rules may impede your workflow so much that you find it preferable to either quietly work around the rule, or even to quit.
unethical_ban 3y ago
Shadow IT. Companies can have reasonable cause to block things, or require processes for installing software, etc., but when those burdens become too much time or effort employees will find a way around it. Almost a decade ago, the company I worked for didn't have good wiki software OR a good request system. My team had a linux server for the purpose of some primitive monitoring and automation of our systems. Apache was already installed... Within a few weeks we operationalized a new dokuwiki installation, and not long after that we built an internal request system based on Bottle.py (since it didn't require any installation, only a single file). Seeing that GPT-4 is so incredibly useful to the people I've heard talk about it, there will be employees trying to use it to increase their code quality, communications, planning, etc. My current employer put out guidance specifically stating not to put any proprietary code into it, no matter how small, nor any confidential information of any kind (don't format your internal earnings email with it, for example). That seems reasonable, and recognizes how hard it will be for employees to go zero-tolerance, especially if they don't have total network control over work endpoints.
jupp0r 3y ago
Just imagine companies would not allow people to use internet search engines for their daily work.
- loeg 3y ago
  Sure, but those are actually useful.

by tjr 3y ago

redmaverick 3y ago

simple reason. I can refactor the codebase in a dozen different ways in a matter of seconds and choose the best one to work on. I can a summon a large volume of unit tests, descriptive logging statements etc. I can also just dump the logs and it will 9/10 times tell you right away what the issue is and how you can resolve it. i.e basically you can do a lot of work in just a matter of hours. Once you taste the productivity increase by integrating AI into your workflow you will miss it if it is taken out. not mention you can build all the handy little tools in a matter of seconds that will make your daily life way easier.

tjr 3y ago
Employees have been prevented (by rule) from doing things that would make them more productive for a long time. For a trivial example, programmers who are proficient in Emacs not being allowed to install and use Emacs. I still fail to see why employees will now choose to disregard this particular rule, and either disobey or quit.
- EFreethought 3y ago
  Honestly, "no Emacs" is one rule that would make me quit.
  - ParetoOptimal 3y ago
    So would I. Funnily enough I thought it might happen at a job in the past so I've thought through the "would you quit if work banned Emacs" question quite a bit.
- ParetoOptimal 3y ago
  > For a trivial example, programmers who are proficient in Emacs not being allowed to install and use Emacs. I'm not sure how you mean trivial here, but not being able to use emacs isn't a trivial matter to emacs users :) > I still fail to see why employees will now choose to disregard this particular rule, and either disobey or quit. I fail to see why employees follow rules that make no sense rather than disobeying or quitting.

hxugufjfjf 3y ago

Because it quickly became a tool that was so useful that I feel I am doing my job better with than without now that it’s available. Similiar to how I would disregard rules and/or quit if I was not allowed to use my operating system of choice at work or was denied the use of a specific tool integral to doing my job (well).

tjr 3y ago
Ah, so you are not disregarding this particular rule, but you disregard all rules that you feel impede you. That answers my question, thank you -- this has nothing in particular to do with GPT tools.
- meghan_rain 3y ago
  Arrogant software devs thinking this labour shortage of code monkeys will continue in perpetuity
  - sangnoir 3y ago
    What labor shortage? It's an employer's market right now, with a glut of high-quality candidates looking for jobs.
- hxugufjfjf 3y ago
  No. I follow many rules, even if I like them or not. I picked one simple example of a rule I would consider a dealbreaker for my employment to illustrate how many people have already started using ChatGPT so heavily in their workflows that they would consider it detrimental if their employer took it away from them. But yes, it might not really have anything to do with GPT specifically besides it apparently being a very useful tool for a lot of employees, given that some would at least claim to quit their jobs over being prevented from using it.
  - tjr 3y ago
    Thank you again. I did not mean to claim that you disregard literally all rules, and I apologize for coming across that way. I find your explanation sound and reasonable. There are many rules that, even if not necessarily liked, are not sufficient grounds to do anything about. But sometimes rules may impede your workflow so much that you find it preferable to either quietly work around the rule, or even to quit.

unethical_ban 3y ago

Shadow IT. Companies can have reasonable cause to block things, or require processes for installing software, etc., but when those burdens become too much time or effort employees will find a way around it. Almost a decade ago, the company I worked for didn't have good wiki software OR a good request system. My team had a linux server for the purpose of some primitive monitoring and automation of our systems. Apache was already installed... Within a few weeks we operationalized a new dokuwiki installation, and not long after that we built an internal request system based on Bottle.py (since it didn't require any installation, only a single file). Seeing that GPT-4 is so incredibly useful to the people I've heard talk about it, there will be employees trying to use it to increase their code quality, communications, planning, etc. My current employer put out guidance specifically stating not to put any proprietary code into it, no matter how small, nor any confidential information of any kind (don't format your internal earnings email with it, for example). That seems reasonable, and recognizes how hard it will be for employees to go zero-tolerance, especially if they don't have total network control over work endpoints.

jupp0r 3y ago

Just imagine companies would not allow people to use internet search engines for their daily work.

loeg 3y ago
Sure, but those are actually useful.