cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/2811405
"We view this moment of hype around generative AI as dangerous. There is a pack mentality in rushing to invest in these tools, while overlooking the fact that they threaten workers and impact consumers by creating lesser quality products and allowing more erroneous outputs. For example, earlier this year America’s National Eating Disorders Association fired helpline workers and attempted to replace them with a chatbot. The bot was then shut down after its responses actively encouraged disordered eating behaviors. "
The trick is not to say it outloud, otherwise you set a standard for others in the eyes of bosses and they’d think it should be paid less for the same amount of work. Those who can’t adapt become less valued and you don’t benefit that much from that either. When it’s all about wage, it’s better to free your time to work on your own projects or work half-time on remote before your higher ups know, or even some colleagues of a snitchy variety. That’s what the lack of unions does.
Fortunately, I’m a sole practising lawyer. So the results speak for themselves. Nobody cares how you crafted 100 pages of written argument. The court is only concerned whether it’s persuasive and accurately represents the applicable legal principles. It’s hard work to make sure gpt-4 isn’t confused, but that’s a skill one develops over time.
That’s a good case, right, including their formulated nature and distinct language.