The cost of NOT using AI

[Horace]

Too bad that they only tested AI vs AI though. A cynical reading of that is just going to be that AIs prefer their own. But I suspect similar results would be observed of AI resumes were given to human hiring managers.

[Doctor Phibes]

I'd rather hire somebody who didn't write like he'd swallowed a thesaurus and then when you met him in person couldn't make eye-contact and kept checking his phone during the interview.

But that's just me. Enjoy your brave new world. I'll be out back being laughable.

[Horace]

@Doctor-Phibes said:

I'd rather hire somebody who didn't write like he'd swallowed a thesaurus and then when you met him in person couldn't make eye-contact and kept checking his phone during the interview.

But that's just me. Enjoy your brave new world. I'll be out back being laughable.

Again, it's a luxury. You're in a non-competitive position where you aren't judged against people using AIs. Anybody who is not in such a job doesn't have the luxury of sneering at AIs.

[jon-nyc]

@Horace said:

A refusal to use AI is a luxury few in the job market can afford. Anti-AI attitudes will be remarkable in retrospect for how hot they flamed up vs how short lived they were. AI luddites are going to be a laughable species of human sooner rather than later.

I sorta think they already are.

And so many of their complaints telegraph that they haven’t used any of the modern models.

[jon-nyc]

@Doctor-Phibes said:

I'd rather hire somebody who didn't write like he'd swallowed a thesaurus and then when you met him in person couldn't make eye-contact and kept checking his phone during the interview.

The question is whether that person would even get in the door of HR or a recruiter filters your candidates before you even see them.

[Doctor Phibes]

@Horace said:

@Doctor-Phibes said:

I'd rather hire somebody who didn't write like he'd swallowed a thesaurus and then when you met him in person couldn't make eye-contact and kept checking his phone during the interview.

But that's just me. Enjoy your brave new world. I'll be out back being laughable.

Again, it's a luxury. You're in a non-competitive position where you aren't judged against people using AIs. Anybody who is not in such a job doesn't have the luxury of sneering at AIs.

I'm not sneering at AI. I'm sneering at the idea that it's going to make everything fucking awesome.

I recently had to sit through a long presentation by a woman with quite heavily Botoxed lips tell us how much our lives were going to be improved by it. I couldn't help but notice the irony.

Yes, I know it's unavoidable. Implying that I'm an idiot if I don't like it is somewhat controversial.

[Horace]

You could make the argument that technology generally doesn't make people happier, but after it's introduced, not using it while everybody else is, can make a person unhappier.

[Horace]

As for making people awesome, it's just obvious that a person armed with today's AI taken back 10 years in time would be viewed as awesome. AI does make people awesome as compared to their pre-AI selves, in terms of their competence and productivity, for many tasks and occupations.

[Doctor Phibes]

I think there’s a pretty good chance that it’s going to make people dumber rather than smarter

[Axtremus]

@Doctor-Phibes said:

I think there’s a pretty good chance that it’s going to make people dumber rather than smarter

As judged by @horace or as judged by AI?

[taiwan_girl]

https://www.missourinet.com/2025/11/07/hawley-cosponsoring-bill-to-keep-track-of-job-losses-caused-by-artificial-intelligence/

Are Americans losing their jobs to Artificial Intelligence?

That’s the question U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, addressed in an interview with Missourinet.

“Well, here’s the deal,” Hawley said. “If AI is going to be good for the United States of America, it’s got to be good for working people. I’m all for innovation, but only if it helps actual Americans.”

Hawley has teamed up with U.S. Sen. Senator Mark Warner, D-Virginia, to cosponsor a bill designed to keep track of layoffs and job losses caused by the implementation of AI.

“So, here’s what our legislation would do,” Hawley said. “It would require these tech companies to come forward with data about how many jobs they are cutting because of AI and how many they’re creating. They are out there saying, ‘oh, we’re gonna have a job bonanza.’ Great, let’s see the evidence.”

The bill would require federal agencies, and major companies provide quarterly reports on AI-related job losses to the U.S. Labor Department, which would then provide an annual report to Congress.

“Here’s what I’m worried about. More and more people are losing their jobs because of AI, and they’re not getting replaced with anything. We need to protect American workers. We need more jobs, not fewer. We need higher wages, not lower,” Hawley said. “This is a first step towards holding these AI companies accountable.”

Seems kind of goofy to me. There are always things occurring to technology that will initially cause a loss of jobs for some people.

For example: number of blacksmith in 1900 vs 1925, telephone switch operators from 1940 vs. 1965 or so.

Maybe that is something a communist system would do.

[Horace]

I just vibed an application with chatGPT in an afternoon that would have taken me weeks to write by hand. And I'm sure the code is better this way too.