Je suis franco-canadien, québécois (et en visite pour les fêtes de surcroît), et bilingue, et j'arrive à suivre.

J'avoue que je suis pas exactement la majorité mais bon :P

Mes excuses pour avoir assumé.

As an (Aging?) ADHD, he's honestly talking at a perfect speed.

Now, to be perfectly clear, the timing of the new requirement is... Less than perfect if you want to argue about the motivations behind its introduction.

Even considering that, the principle itself is sound.

If you move somewhere, I agree: respect the culture, and learn.

bsky.app/profile/unse...

Bad news: github.com/Floorp-Proje...

I hate this timeline and hope this "ai" bubble bursts.

It is, as ever, not the tool, but how "The Haves" want to use the tool, leading to more "Have-nots" getting sidelined.

It's like if I was training a replacement hire that Corp got in at half my wage, only to fire me the moment they were good enough.

...wait

...WAIT

And that's where, and why, some of us are still fucking pissed.

The tech might be useful. Good, even. But ONLY as a tool. NOT AS A REPLACEMENT FOR CREATIVITY AND/OR ACTUAL WORK.

Like, I want to code at work. I don't want to fucking babysit an algorithm that's learning to do my job.

All of this to say.

I suspect that some of us on the side of 'F*ck "AI" with a rake', make the distinction between the myriad technologies that were hastily rebranded as "AI" because corpos were chasing the coin, and what is being sold to us by the 'Big "AI"' players.

And this is from a non-union / nonplussed about unions person. I have emotional trauma about unions and wouldn't fight for one, and yet I'm VERY much on the side of giving "AI", or at least what we're being SOLD as "AI", the heaviest fucking side-eye I can physically and muscularly pull off.

I am not advocating for "benefit of the doubt" type shit. If a C-level executive pushes for "AI", unfortunately for me, I raise my provervial shields and I'm automatically wary of the initiatives and mandates.

Hell, I'm probably already in trouble at work behind the scenes because of my positions.

"AI" mandates and "recommendations" (which are mandates with extra steps), CANNOT be trusted. Guidelines schmidelines, we've already seen multiple instances of big corpos sacrificing headcount at the altar of 'The "AI" Progress', usually to hilariously horrible results both human and content-wise.

On the OTHER side of the coin:

"AI" as it is being sold and *peddled by C-suites*, is absolute utter bullshit.

At this point in time, unless bloody AUDITABLE, a company with a Chief-level team (C-suite) that MANDATES or otherwise "wink wink nudge nudge STARE" the use of "AI", is automatically sus.

The tool part itself, can be considered potentially useful.

That's the nuance.

AND IT STOPS THERE.

BECAUSE.

Another example: past the learning algorithm itself, a "large language model" trained exclusively on, say, the C++ language spec, clang's C++ and C documentation and code, and EXCLUSIVELY AND ONLY my own personal code... That's basically Microsoft IntelliSense with a cybik personality module.

I'm a bit sad to say that, yes, the proponents of "AI" do have a bit of a point here, in that a tool is a tool.

But you'll notice I'm using "AI" in double quotes, 'cause it's kind of a bullshit term now. Dumbest example: with all of the work going into its algorithm, Google Search is basically "AI"