3 ms·

> .. and "AI bad" He's not saying that though, is he? He's quite literally said that people have found AI useful, and that's great! For example: > We don't

> .. and "AI bad" He's not saying that though, is he? He's quite literally said that people have found AI useful, and that's great! For example: > We don't actually have to follow along with the narratives that tech tycoons make up for each other. We choose the tools that we use, based on the utility that they have for us. It's strange to have to say it, but... there are people picking up and adopting AI tools on their own, because they find them useful. And: > The strangest part is, the AI pushers don't have to lie about what AI can do! If, as they say, AI tools are going to get better quickly, then let them do so and trust that smart people will pick them up and use them. If you think your workers and colleagues are too stupid to recognize good tools that will help them do their jobs better, then .. Anyway, how many layers of accused irony and snark can we go down? Am I the next?

resolutefunctor 1y ago
I was keying in on the line: > This is an important illustration: AI is really good for helping you if you're bad at something, or at least below average. But it's probably not the right tool if you're great at something. Considering the authors complaint is having professionals (who would in theory be good at their job because they are professionals) use AI puts that in the "not the right tool." But I probably did stretch a bit there, and appreciate you calling it out.
- anildash 1y ago
  Yeah, and to be clear, the context that I assumed most readers would have (on my site, where I think they'd know a bit about me, as opposed to here on HN) is that I'm a former CEO. So my disdain for CEO stupidity is higher, and my tendency to be critical is much stronger, because of that perspective.