[chneu]

Some people just don't want to use AI and there are very legitimate reasons for that.

Why are you so willing to teach a program how to do your job? Why are you so willing to give your information to a LLM that doesn't care about your privacy?

[zamadatix]

I agree there can be very legitimate reasons for personally not wanting to use AI. At the same time, I'm not sure I find either of those questions to be related to particularly convincing reasons.

Teaching a program how to do your job has been part of the hacker mindset for many decades now, I don't think there is anything new to be said as to why. Anyone here reading this on the internet has long since decided they are fine preferring technical automations over preserving traditional ways of completing work.

LLMs don't inherently imply anything about privacy handling, the service you select does (if you aren't just opting to self host in the first place). On the hosted service side there's anything from "free and sucks up everything" to "business data governance contracts about what data can be used how".

[daveguy]

> Anyone here reading this on the internet has long since decided they are fine preferring technical automations over preserving traditional ways of completing work.

Well, that's a huge unsubstantiated leap. Also, it's not about "preserving traditional ways of completing work." It's just about recognizing that humans are much better at the vast majority of real world work.

[zamadatix]

> Well, that's a huge unsubstantiated leap.

I suppose that might depend on how you read "preferring". As in "is what one would ideally like" then sure, it's a bit orthogonal. As in "is what one would decides to use" is what I mean in that we are willing to try and use technical automations over traditional means by nature of being here, even if a face to face conversation would be higher quality or an additional mailman would be employed.

> Also, it's not about "preserving traditional ways of completing work." It's just about recognizing that humans are much better at the vast majority of real world work.

While an interesting topic I'm not sure this really relates to why people are willing to teach a program how to do their job. It would be more "why people don't bother to", which is a bit of the opposite assumption (that we should if it were worth it).

The most interesting thing about recognizing humans are much better at the vast majority of real world work is it doesn't define where the boundary currently sits or how far it's moving. I suspect people will continue to be the best option for the majority of work for a very long time to come by our nature to stop considering automated things work. "Work" ends up being "what we're employed to do" rather than "things that happen". Things like lights, electricity, hvac, dishwasher, washer/dryer, water delivery & waste removal, instances of music or entertainment performances, and so on used to require large amounts of human work but now that the majority of work in those areas is automated we call them "expenses" and "work" is having to load/unload the washer instead of clean the clothes and so on.

So, by one measure, I'd disagree wholeheartedly. Machine automation is responsible for more quality production output that humans if, for anything, because of the sheer volume of output and use than being better at a randomly chosen task. On another measure I'd agree wholeheartedly - the things we define as being better at tend to be the things it's worth us doing which become the things we still call "work". Anything which truly has the majority done better (on average) by machines becomes an expense.