[darth_avocado]

> At my company I just tell people “You have to stand behind your work”

Since when has that not been the bare minimum. Even before AI existed, and even if you did not work in programming at all, you sort of have to do that as a bare minimum. Even if you use a toaster and your company guidelines suggest you toast every sandwich for 20 seconds, if following every step as per training results in a lump of charcoal for bread, you can’t serve it up to the customer. At the end of the day, you make the sandwich, you’re responsible for making it correctly.

Using AI as a scapegoat for sloppy and lazy work needs to be unacceptable.

[Negitivefrags]

Of course it’s the minimum standard, and it’s obvious if you view AI as a tool that a human uses.

But some people view it as a seperate entity that writes code for you. And if you view AI like that, then “The AI did it” becomes an excuse that they use.

[atoav]

"Yes, but you submitted it to us."

If you're illiterate and can't read maybe don't submit the text someone has written for you if you can't even parse the letters.

[fourthark]

The policy in TFA is a nicer way of saying that.

[fwipsy]

Bad example. If the toaster carbonized bread in 20 seconds it's defective, likely unsafe, possibly violates physics, certainly above the pay grade of a sandwich-pusher.

Taking responsibility for outcomes is a powerful paradigm but I refuse to be held responsible for things that are genuinely beyond my power to change.

This is tangential to the AI discussion though.

[darth_avocado]

> If the toaster carbonized bread in 20 seconds it's defective, likely unsafe, possibly violates physics, certainly above the pay grade of a sandwich-pusher.

If the toaster is defective, not using it, identifying how to use it if it’s still usable or getting it replaced by reporting it as defective are all well within the pay grade of a sandwich pusher as well as part of their responsibilities.

And you’re still responsible for the sandwich. You can’t throw up your arms and say “the toaster did it”. And that’s where it’s not tangential to the AI discussion.

Toaster malfunctioning is beyond your control, but whether you serve up the burnt sandwich is absolutely within your control, which you will be and should be held responsible for.

[fwipsy]

That's exactly what I said and at odds with your last comment. You take responsibility for making the sandwich if possible. If not, you're not responsible for the sandwich, but for refunding the customer or offering them something else.

If I'm required to write code using AI without being given time to verify it, then it's also not fair for me to be held responsible for the quality. Agency matters. I will not take responsibility for things that I'm not given the power to address. Of course if I choose to write code with an AI and it comes out badly, that's within my responsibilities.

It's a bad example because typically "whether to toast the sandwich" depends on customer preference (imposed externally) but "whether to use AI" is still mostly up to the worker.

[skydhash]

That’s why you make some written protest. While it would not save you from layoff, you won’t be made into a scapegoat.

[dullcrisp]

No it’s not. If you burn a sandwich, you make new sandwich. Sandwiches don’t abide by the laws of physics. If you call a physicist and tell them you burnt your sandwich, they won’t care.

[atoav]

I think it depends on the pay. You pay below the living wage? Better live with your sla.. ah employees.. serving charcoal. You pay them well above the living wage? Now we start to get into they should care-territory.