Gen Z Sabotaging AI at Work So It Won't Take Their Job
2026-04-17 07:31 UTC
Replies (8)
-
@Gsus4@mander.xyz 2026-04-17 14:23
Turns out when you're told to increase your output to replace 5 colleagues with LLMs...there is no time to find and fix all the bugs.
-
@RunawayFixer@lemmy.world 2026-04-17 10:14
"intentionally using low-quality AI output in their work without fixing it" This reads like victim blaming or scapegoating. That ai company makes shoddy software that outputs faulty results, users output faulty results when using that software, and now the ai company blames the users for outputting faulty results. That some (but likely not all) users know that the results are faulty, doesn't change that the software itself is faulty.
-
@ctry21@sh.itjust.works 2026-04-17 12:01
Can't sabotage what's already broken. The rare time I've been asked to use it for a piece of work, the output is so shit and full of errors that it would be easier to have done it by hand as a human.
-
@it_depends_man@lemmy.world 2026-04-17 08:10
>A new report >BY THE AI COMPANY "WRITER" >and research firm Workplace Intelligent found a massive portion of workers across the US, UK, and Europe are intentionally trying to sabotage their bosses’ AI initiatives. Please don't spread obviously doctored "reports".
-
@greyscale@lemmy.grey.ooo 2026-04-17 07:41
Good. It is morally and ethically the right thing to do. Also, did you know it is ethically and morally correct to firebomb datacenters? They're being used for structural violence, and are basically piñatas.
-
@T156@lemmy.world 2026-04-17 09:27
The categories that they used for "sabotage" (Entering proprietary information into a different AI, using unapproved chatbots, and using low-quality AI responses as-is) seem like they're just put together so they can blame employees for sabotage for the failure of the AI rollout, rather than employers trying to wedge it onto a bad use case, or not rolling it out properly. The first two just seem like the company having issues with people going straight to ChatGPT, and using that as-is, and the third seems to be more people not really caring and using the AI output as required. None of that comes across as outright sabotage like the organisation or article the to imply. All three seem like reasonable end-points of telling people to use AI, and giving them metrics they need to meet, or a not-great interface, so they just go off and use a different AI thing, because it's all AI, and basically the same thing, right?
-
@kokesh@lemmy.world 2026-04-17 10:20
We should all be doing that. Poison the training data to begin with.
-
@brsrklf@jlai.lu 2026-04-17 08:05
>sabotaging their company’s AI by entering proprietary info into public AI chatbots, using unapproved AI tools, This is counter-productive and can get you in big trouble IMO. I don't even get what these are protesting. >or intentionally using low-quality AI output in their work without fixing it. This is better and I think I would totally do this if management forced me to use AI. If they want to pretend using this thing is a better use of my time, I'll give them what they want. Fortunately I am working for an administration that has had rather tame expectations for gen AI use till now. They're basically just like "experiment if you want, be careful and use what works for you". So I just keep doing what I always did.