The headline is very misleading, because the manager already knew the employee was tardy, had spoken with privately on it, and merely consulted the AI before the making the decision. Even moreso the AI was faulty on keeping track on attendance. So it's less AI made the right call and AI was second opinion on a clean case already known to all parties. My concern is businesses see the headline and immediately jump to using AI to rank employees, determine who's a good fit for PIP/firing, etc and being able to "well I used the ai responsibly" or "the ai made the same call I would have, it just provided data."
The headline is very misleading, because the manager already knew the employee was tardy, had spoken with privately on it, and merely consulted the AI before the making the decision. Even moreso the AI was faulty on keeping track on attendance. So it's less AI made the right call and AI was second opinion on a clean case already known to all parties. My concern is businesses see the headline and immediately jump to using AI to rank employees, determine who's a good fit for PIP/firing, etc and being able to "well I used the ai responsibly" or "the ai made the same call I would have, it just provided data."
interesting continuing story, total slop article.
True, but why wouldn’t AI write the article? No one is doing anything real for any real purpose except playing with AI here.