If they didn’t use AI and instead actively choice to terminate workers with disabilities and medical problems unfairly, that seems almost worse. Like, they’re just admitting to discrimination, aren’t they?
It’s like being accused of exercising poor gun safety leading to someone’s death and saying, “I exercise perfect gun safety, I actively chose to shoot them!”
I think it’s simpler than that. They believed their own AI PR bullshit, huffed their own farts, and management thought they could get paid more to do less, offloading decisions.
Don’t ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.
If they didn’t use AI and instead actively choice to terminate workers with disabilities and medical problems unfairly, that seems almost worse. Like, they’re just admitting to discrimination, aren’t they?
It’s like being accused of exercising poor gun safety leading to someone’s death and saying, “I exercise perfect gun safety, I actively chose to shoot them!”
That’s the point. They knew who they wanted to fire, but this way they can try to hide behind “the AI did it”.
And since they’re a gigantic company, I’d wager that defence will be successful.
I think it’s simpler than that. They believed their own AI PR bullshit, huffed their own farts, and management thought they could get paid more to do less, offloading decisions.
Don’t ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.
Unless the person/entity has a history of bad behavior, which Facebook does
Malicious and stupid aren’t mutually exclusive, but stupid often leads.
Fuck that shit, stop giving these malignant wraiths the benefit of doubt.
Ultimately, the fire decision was of the company no matter what consultant they used.
Yeah, but they’ll need a court to rule on that, and these days it’s not as clear cut as it should be.
They lose, they get a slap on the wrist and a fine that is the equivalent of pocket change. They win, and they set a precedent that this shit is ok.
So you are shifting the responsibility to ai ghost. Brilliant