As funny as it is when presented that way, it does make sense. After all if a company is using AI wherever possible, and yet hiring a person, then presumably it’s because they want that person to do things they don’t want to be using AI for.
Yes, developing AI is different from all sorts of things - that’s why an AI dev hiring process would assess competence at AI dev. If a candidate demonstrated competence doing that job, using tools they’ll have available at work, what’s the problem?
I don’t know why people simply say, “Thing A is different from Thing B,” as if it’s a mic drop.
“Our company develops AI. It has many uses and should substitute for human labor whenever possible.”
“USE OF AI BY APPLICANTS IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED!”
As funny as it is when presented that way, it does make sense. After all if a company is using AI wherever possible, and yet hiring a person, then presumably it’s because they want that person to do things they don’t want to be using AI for.
OTOH assuming the hiring process is competent at assessing job fitness, an applicant who gets through it using AI should be fit to do the job with AI.
Using AI is very different from developing AI.
And…?
Yes, developing AI is different from all sorts of things - that’s why an AI dev hiring process would assess competence at AI dev. If a candidate demonstrated competence doing that job, using tools they’ll have available at work, what’s the problem?
I don’t know why people simply say, “Thing A is different from Thing B,” as if it’s a mic drop.