FOUND IT

@lokeloski my biggest takeaway from this is that YOU CAN BE A COMICS PROFESSOR?!?!!?!?

@mynameistillian @lokeloski ah, I see it now: *this* is at the root of why mandated AI use is so corrosive. Someone up the heirarchy, not understanding the complexity of the work of their subordinates, thinks they are replaceable by the machine. Hmm. I need to think on this.

@PhilWill @ratsnakegames @lokeloski

ah, I see it now: *this* is at the root of why mandated AI use is so corrosive. Someone up the heirarchy, not understanding the complexity of the work of their subordinates, declares they are replaceable by the machine.

Hmm. I need to think on this.

@lokeloski In both cases it sounds like the advice is that you can't use it for things that you are going to be marked on - the justification given is of course, wrong.

@lokeloski "It's only ever the jobs we're unfamiliar with that we assume can be replaced with automation."

Yup. And I only ever hear *bosses* say that *everybody* can be replaced by automation.

You may now draw your own conclusions.

@ratsnakegames this right here ️
@lokeloski

@davidgerard ironically I really thought Crichton was smart until he wrote a book around my own field of expertise.
@geeeero @lokeloski

@lokeloski There is a sense where, in an academic environment, using AI for those parts that are not central to ones study might be justified.

So, if you are doing comics, learning how to draw stories, maybe using something else for the storywriting is viable.

Obviously, not in the real world. In the real world, generative AI is of no use whatsoever.

@lokeloski People perennially underestimate the difficulty of any type of work other than the type they do themselves.

@mathieugenois

Terry Tao?

@davidgerard @geeeero @lokeloski could you elaborate on it, or provide some sources? Cause at first glance it honestly feels pretty accurate? Like I've even felt myself slip into this, and I only learned there's a name for it just now

@hazelnot @geeeero @lokeloski well, the linked Wikipedia article for one. If you're demanding I go prove a negative for you, i mean, you could go look yourself.

@davidgerard @geeeero @lokeloski I'm not *demanding* anything, I was just asking

I read the Wikipedia article and it didn't seem like trash to me, it says it hasn't been formally recognised but that it's "gained traction in critical thinking and media literacy discussions"

@deborahh @mynameistillian @lokeloski

The machine can not replace the human.
The machine will be used to replace the human.

@hazelnot @geeeero @lokeloski and it cites a total of one thing

hence the notability tag

i put a note on the talk page that this is based on almost nothing except a vastly overlength quote and the few sentences in the crichton article do exactly the same job

@lokeloski Found the link https://catmask.tumblr.com/post/805377916247621632

@lokeloski
We all take pride in our work but the reality is that most of it is meaningless. Sure we can do a better job in context than AI, but jobs are not about efficiency, but about power. And the only one more powerless than an employed person is a person looking for work. Which is why the powerful love AI. It seems to have an added benefit in being capable of sowing division.

@lokeloski because "Gen" really means not only "generative", but also "generic". So, it can only truly replace generalists, but not specialists.

@lokeloski Clearly, the only thing AI can actually replace is…. Engineers doing AI work.

Once no humans are working on AI any more, nobody will care what it does.

Ok, this has been making the rounds around here, so I'm muting it now because it keeps blowing my notifications up.