As I understand it, Coinbase will now definitely include wrong/hallucinationed info in their articles, and the articles will be blander and have less of a unique voice. Win-win situation, he's earned his yearly bonus.
I read the article. He didn't fire someone for not adopting AI, but rather for not even having a good reason not to onboard into an AI tool for a week.
> [he told] engineers that they didn't have to use the tools on a daily basis yet but "at least onboard by the end of the week."
Would you be fired if you refused to set up a tool (not AI, any tool) that your CEO said you were going to use in the future? And that the company was investing in?
I don't know, but there'd surely be some repercussion.
To use a more unpleasant but realistic scenario, suppose my CEO said "we're moving to use Jira; everyone needs to set up your account by the end of the week. That's how we are going to track work going forward. You don't have to check Jira every day yet, but it's a company wide rollout and you'll be expected to do this soon".
Further, suppose I refused to set up my account because I didn't think it was important to my job or because I didn't want to. (I don't know the motivations of the Coinbase employees, to be clear.)
I think at that point, termination (or at least a warning) would be justified.
If an employee had moral or ethical concerns about using Jira, that's a different situation. But from the article, that doesn't seem to be the case.
"I refuse a mailing list" <- closer approximation, in my opinion. Which matters: results, or the method? Proponents have a consistent story, yet I'm getting confused.
Like GP, I read the article too! Different conclusion(s). The CEO wanted a 'good reason'? Control group in this performance experiment. Or, 'fuck off'; how's that? Founder Mode? Cult mode.
Do CEOs like this find it difficult to conceive that AI may not be useful to other people because they're generally so incompetent they see AI doing their own jobs better than themselves?
There's a ton of people that are so resistant to change... Like, finding people who embrace the future and is okay with uncertainty for a while is tough, mostly on scenarios where their age is 35+, though not so dependent on age, but on mindset... I do understand his position, as it's the law of selection... If people are not at least trying to "adapt" to the new reality, then firing them, can also serve as a signal to others... Adapt or die!
Sounds like a case of using oil to wash away a soap spill.
As I understand it, Coinbase will now definitely include wrong/hallucinationed info in their articles, and the articles will be blander and have less of a unique voice. Win-win situation, he's earned his yearly bonus.
I read the article. He didn't fire someone for not adopting AI, but rather for not even having a good reason not to onboard into an AI tool for a week.
> [he told] engineers that they didn't have to use the tools on a daily basis yet but "at least onboard by the end of the week."
Would you be fired if you refused to set up a tool (not AI, any tool) that your CEO said you were going to use in the future? And that the company was investing in?
I don't know, but there'd surely be some repercussion.
I fail to see the functional distinction of what you are trying to point out.
“I refuse to use Slack” <- You would be fired. That’s what they are talking about and they are right.
Yup.
To use a more unpleasant but realistic scenario, suppose my CEO said "we're moving to use Jira; everyone needs to set up your account by the end of the week. That's how we are going to track work going forward. You don't have to check Jira every day yet, but it's a company wide rollout and you'll be expected to do this soon".
Further, suppose I refused to set up my account because I didn't think it was important to my job or because I didn't want to. (I don't know the motivations of the Coinbase employees, to be clear.)
I think at that point, termination (or at least a warning) would be justified.
If an employee had moral or ethical concerns about using Jira, that's a different situation. But from the article, that doesn't seem to be the case.
"I refuse a mailing list" <- closer approximation, in my opinion. Which matters: results, or the method? Proponents have a consistent story, yet I'm getting confused.
Like GP, I read the article too! Different conclusion(s). The CEO wanted a 'good reason'? Control group in this performance experiment. Or, 'fuck off'; how's that? Founder Mode? Cult mode.
edit: Archive link for anyone into it: http://archive.today/LDcBH
Do CEOs like this find it difficult to conceive that AI may not be useful to other people because they're generally so incompetent they see AI doing their own jobs better than themselves?
What an absolute sociopath
an weirdo detected 321
There's a ton of people that are so resistant to change... Like, finding people who embrace the future and is okay with uncertainty for a while is tough, mostly on scenarios where their age is 35+, though not so dependent on age, but on mindset... I do understand his position, as it's the law of selection... If people are not at least trying to "adapt" to the new reality, then firing them, can also serve as a signal to others... Adapt or die!