Post #1645035

2026-04-23 09:08 UTC

@PaulMcEwan that "requirement" to use it drives me nuts - we don't have that yet (or at least I don't as an academic, I'm unsure what professional staff are dealing with), and I just don't understand it. It feels very much like measuring something for the sake of measurement, rather than actual real outcomes and efficiencies. While my experience was very much about trying it out to see what the fuss is all about, I did try to use it legitimately, in the way we have been trained and advised to do, and it just wasted so much of my time. Tomorrow I will implement my own solution from scratch reading real documentation, it's going to take less time and I will learn more.

Replies (2)

@PaulMcEwan@eigenmagic.net 2026-04-23 09:15

@jimbob That's my objection to using "AI": losing the opportunity for learning and developing solutions, knowledges that are beneficial for other tasks. I'm not academic; I'm professional staff. And, for some bizarre reason, HEWs at my uni are expected to use Copilot and develop "skills" using these technologies.

Open ##1645036
@mlazz@aus.social 2026-04-23 11:16

@jimbob @PaulMcEwan That read very similarly to my attempts to use LLMs for work. The best I've managed so far is to get it to turn my vague hand-wavey description of the problem into more specific names of methodologies that I can then search for via more traditional means. I don't know enough to know what sort of evidence you are required to show your employer to prove that you've been using Copilot, but it certainly sounds like it would be quicker to get Copilot to generate that evidence while you read the manual.

Open ##1645037