I don’t actually think I frame that as the only alternative. There’s nuance on the article. It’s a bit up to you how to interpret it. Some options are:
He would have actually kept the job if he hadn’t slacked off the final week, and kept using AI.
The job was not a good fit for him anyway because the vibecode-heavy workspace virtually required using AI. But that doesn’t meant that there wouldn’t be other jobs for him (he gets one at the end btw).
He might have been able to get by without AI if he didn’t go through his gargantuan vimwiki project for 3 weeks.
For the record, I think the entire spectrum of accepting/rejecting AI has valid points, and that there’s a lot of value on the rejection side. I also think it’s alright to make fun of some of them, particularly if doing it mostly to highlight some contradictions and conflicts, without making a moral judgement.
Deciding whether or not to use AI in your work is a valid issue to discuss, but being unemployed right now is almost entirely a function of a shitty job market, not being a stick in the mud.
Well, the idea was to have a narrator who is a bit self-sabotaging in their job hunt, doesn’t notice, and blames the job market and AI. The nuance is that they are partially right on the external diagnosis, but not on the internal one, and that’s something that happens.
That’s what I mean by punching down, though. There’s no criticism of the outside factors - all the blame falls on the PoV character.
There have always been (and always will be) engineers with self-sabotaging tendencies, but with plenty to contribute nonetheless. It shouldn’t be a sentence for poverty.
The article literally starts with “In 2026, the job market is tough. AI plunged us all into economic despair” (itself exaggerated, and a play on the typical “AI doomer” clickbait articles saying what we all know more dramatically, which is another can of worms).
It shouldn’t be a sentence for poverty.
Agreed. And in the article it isn’t. He does get a job at the end.
But yeah, I can see how your reading of the article is valid. I’ll sleep on it and see if I can do something about it.
“In 2026, the job market is tough. AI plunged us all into economic despair” (itself exaggerated, and a play on the typical “AI doomer” clickbait articles […])
The choice to frame this with parody is a bit problematic, though, since it makes it sound like your piece agrees that the economic issues are wildly overblown. They are somewhat, of course, but it’s also a very difficult time for many people.
I can see how your reading of the article is valid. I’ll sleep on it and see if I can do something about it.
Thank you for the acknowledgement. Maybe I’m over-identifying with your character, but the piece hit me pretty hard in a bad way. Your empathy is really appreciated.
It’s satire of the people who are out of work because they “won’t adapt to the AI paradigm”
eta: which seems like a bad thing, yeah?
Looks like you didn’t read the post or reacted too quickly and too angrily.
Are you sure you read it? The POV character gets fired (and ends up working as a
janitordoorman) because they only start using it “too late”.It’s implied that he actually gets fired because of refusing orders for 3 weeks, and then slacking off another week.
But you frame the only alternative as “use the AI tools we tell you to”.
I don’t actually think I frame that as the only alternative. There’s nuance on the article. It’s a bit up to you how to interpret it. Some options are:
For the record, I think the entire spectrum of accepting/rejecting AI has valid points, and that there’s a lot of value on the rejection side. I also think it’s alright to make fun of some of them, particularly if doing it mostly to highlight some contradictions and conflicts, without making a moral judgement.
Deciding whether or not to use AI in your work is a valid issue to discuss, but being unemployed right now is almost entirely a function of a shitty job market, not being a stick in the mud.
Well, the idea was to have a narrator who is a bit self-sabotaging in their job hunt, doesn’t notice, and blames the job market and AI. The nuance is that they are partially right on the external diagnosis, but not on the internal one, and that’s something that happens.
That’s what I mean by punching down, though. There’s no criticism of the outside factors - all the blame falls on the PoV character.
There have always been (and always will be) engineers with self-sabotaging tendencies, but with plenty to contribute nonetheless. It shouldn’t be a sentence for poverty.
The article literally starts with “In 2026, the job market is tough. AI plunged us all into economic despair” (itself exaggerated, and a play on the typical “AI doomer” clickbait articles saying what we all know more dramatically, which is another can of worms).
Agreed. And in the article it isn’t. He does get a job at the end.
But yeah, I can see how your reading of the article is valid. I’ll sleep on it and see if I can do something about it.
The choice to frame this with parody is a bit problematic, though, since it makes it sound like your piece agrees that the economic issues are wildly overblown. They are somewhat, of course, but it’s also a very difficult time for many people.
Thank you for the acknowledgement. Maybe I’m over-identifying with your character, but the piece hit me pretty hard in a bad way. Your empathy is really appreciated.
That’s a good point, yes.
No problem! Fwiw I think a lot of us identify with a lot of that character these days.