Also refuses to count CCC papers under "complexity and algorithms" despite many of us pointing out how ridiculous that is. Not for any page limit or anything, just...because?

Do you also not believe the news stories about how much energy they use? Driving up people's energy prices and polluting their towns? Yes it's small globally compared to car or air travel. But it's a part of the carbon budget we can simply choose not to use & pollution we can chose not to make.

2. We are developing a policy for AI-related work. We need a formal policy on AI-generated and LLM-assisted content. We have formed a committee of volunteers from our social science and library science networks to gather existing policies and decide what to do.
/5

Been there (on both sides!).

Still depends on the person, the task, etc. Happy to give more specific advice if you want to share more details (eg by DM or email)

Depends on the person, the timing, and the thing being reminded about. For me personally (to receive them), for most things I have no limit as long as they are sufficiently spaced.

Oh oh I'm with you!

(To be clear: I didn't mean any criticism of your post, just sharing info for those following along)

bsky.app/profile/josh...

(FWIW, AFAICT the two studies don't actually contradict one another, just the way they've been reported.)

They did no independent validation of whether AI can do those jobs or not (and they were pretty clear about this; I'm not blaming the authors, rather the CNBC hype). But ofc that won't stop companies from firing those workers and trying to replace them with AI.

What the study actually did was then to extrapolate from that how many jobs are at risk of being replaced (based on, AFAICT, a fairly detailed large-scale simulation of the economy).

More accurate: "Based on how companies are already replacing workers with AI, MIT study finds 11.7% of jobs at risk"

As if you need an excuse