[karaterobot]

> The way this technology works means that generative AI applied to anything is a form of slopification, of turning things into slop. However, where AI is undoubtedly successful is as a shock doctrine, as a way to further precaritise workers and privatise services.

You can't say both that AI produces worse results, and that it will be used to manipulate the job market: savvy companies would outcompete by not adopting AI, and hiring up the victims of AI layoffs. If either of his statements is true, the other is false.

This whole article, man. I don't know where to start with it. It definitely reminds me of grad school. In a bad way.

The university has been on a glide path toward irrelevance for quite a while—long before AI was a going concern—and the humanities and social sciences, in particular, have been skimming the treetops since at least when I was in school at the turn of the century. The role of the university is to teach and do research. AI can be a tremendous asset for both of those, and it's not going away, so deal with that reality.