Post #3131224 · Elektrine

2026-02-12 14:05 UTC

@rasterweb@mastodon.social Yes indeed. I am with you 💯 I also hear things like: comparing Ai to the introduction of the calculator and the computer, and how people who resisted learning to use it couldn’t compete with people who learned how to use it. That argument is flawed from the beginning because Ai is not an effective “tool”, and certainly not now. If we had responsible people working on it instead of “gathering data” which adds to the slop, it could start to be a “tool”. Not to mention other problems 🫩

Replies (1)

@david_chisnall@infosec.exchange 2026-02-12 14:48

@em_and_future_cats@mastodon.social @rasterweb@mastodon.social And even if it were effective, that's a terrible argument. I learned how to use a computer using a BBC model B. Yes, some of the things I learned there are still relevant. But I have worked with people my age who learned a decade later and have no disadvantage. People who jumped on technology bandwagons later often have an easier time. They don't have to keep relearning things that rapidly change. While the technology is being deployed, they are solving real problems. Once the technology reaches a generally useful point with some stable features, they can jump on and adopt it at a much lower cost than the early adopters. Look at the eCommerce boom, for example. A very small number of companies like eBay and Amazon did very well from being early adopters but a lot of the early adopters crashed and burned. In contrast, a lot of companies jumped in after the .com crash and built sustainable business models and did very well. In the UK, the supermarket that adopted online ordering earliest was Tesco (they were on Compuserve!). The two with the largest market share are Lidl and Ocado, neither of which entered that market for the first decade.

Open ##3131225