Microsoft Is Not My Copilot

I am a user of Microsoft 365 and I do pay for a yearly subscription. I signed up many years ago after I got my current job and I do like it. I get use of all of the Office suite programs (Excel is far superior to Google Sheets and Apple Numbers)  and 1TB of OneDrive space which is useful since I take photos for a German brass band. However, I recently got a notification that my subscription will be upgraded to the new Microsoft 365 with Copilot. That is, their AI integration that will help me with…things…I guess. Suffice it to say, I don't want it. Luckily, plenty of people have assistance on Bluesky and all I had to do was go to my account, click cancel, and Microsoft gave me the option to continue using Microsoft 365 Classic for the same price I'm paying now. So I did that, but why did I even have to?

It sucks that companies are willing to play games with their customers like this. The notification said nothing about a $30/year price increase for the upgrade, but they automatically assumed that I wanted it and so they signed me up for it. Luckily, I checked my account because lots of companies like to this shit. Back in the 1990's, that procedure was called "slamming" and it was considered by lawmakers to be illegal. Of course, back then it was done over the phone, so it's completely different now I guess. I did switch to Classic and turned off Copilot where I could, but it leaves me with another thought in the back of my mind.

While I did opt out of the AI upgrade (it should be opt-in, honestly), will Copilot still be in the Classic suite, but running silently in the background uploading my data to Microsoft servers and training their AI on it? That is something that isn't clear and I would really like an answer. I know there is concern in the medical and law fields because mixing patient/client data is big, fat no-no and could result in loss of licenses. I would like something in writing that Copilot will be completely disconnected from the Classic version of the suite.

I would be more willing to play ball if AI companies were actually ethical and didn't steal intellectual property for training models. Fine, if you really want to use user data, then lower the price of the software for anyone who opts in. Those who opt out will pay the original price and no data is uploaded for training purposes. I wouldn't expect artists or authors to give up their work because the idea of AI making art or writing novels is ludicrous. If AI was introduced as a tool rather than as a substitute for artists, maybe people would have a different attitude toward it. I could see it used for generating reports or invoices, or maybe to help construct letters or resumes. The thing is, people don't trust the AI companies and don't want AI spying and siphoning data. Go away until you can learn to play nicely.

Article Response--"Soft Quitting"

I'm fortunate enough to work for a company where I am respected and my work is appreciated by my boss. It's things like that that make me want to go above and beyond and learn things outside of the scope of my job description. It hasn't always been this way as I have had a lot of shit jobs in my life, both as a full-time hire and as a contractor. I am going to reach back into my past in order to respond to an article from Forbes titled, "Why Soft Quitting At Work Could Be More Dangerous Than Quiet Quitting," which is a hell of a headline that might need some explanation.

"Quiet quitting," according to…somebody…is a supposed trend where employees are putting in the minimum amount of work for their job description and nothing more. Basically, they come in at 9:00am, do the job for which they are being paid, take a lunch break in there somewhere, and go home at 5:00pm. Gasp! How dare they. This is a symptom of a lack of respect, a lack of good leadership, and a lack of any real meaning to the work that people are doing. I've been there. I've worked for companies where I am treated as a warm body to fill a seat and do a job that, despite my resume, is a few significant steps beneath me. Then, even though I got my work done during the week, I have to come in on a Saturday and fill a seat for eight or twelve hours. Yes, I'm being paid which is nice, but it feels like more of a power move by management to say, "we own you." That doesn't make for positive workplace culture. Essentially, I was a quiet quitter before it was cool. This article is mainly about a new buzzword in corporate circles to dehumanize workers, "Soft quitting."

"Soft quitting" apparently refers to employees disengaging from the overall corporate culture. At one point being an enthusiastic team-player, but at some point pulled back and let somebody else do the brunt of the work. From the article:

The concept of "lying flat," which originated in China in 2021, might provide a broader context for understanding trends like "soft quitting." "Lying flat" refers to a rejection of the pressures of modern life, particularly the relentless demands of work and career progression. This movement, particularly embraced by younger generations, advocates for opting out of competitive work cultures and embracing a minimalist lifestyle. Gallup’s reports show that disengagement in the workforce is linked to this sentiment.

This looks to me like a problem for companies to come to terms with rather than trying to solve. Younger people don't want the yuppie-style rat race of the eighties or the hustle and grind culture of today. I think many millennials and Gen Z are being smart about their lives. It's not that they don't want to work, they want to work at a pace that makes sense. I'm a Gen Xer and grew up watching the Gordon Gekko, "Greed is good" boomer types all around me. These were people with drinking problems, drug problems, and health problems because to them work was the most important thing to them. They tried to instill that exact mindset into GenX, but we had too many new electronic goodies to keep us distracted. Unfortunately, we never took over the world, and the boomers kept power.

Again from the article:

With more individuals, particularly from younger generations, pushing back against the "always-on" work culture, it's possible that this rejection of work-related pressures could manifest as soft quitting in the workplace—where employees still technically remain in their roles, but choose to disengage emotionally, contributing only the bare minimum to their jobs. The problem is only getting worse. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the number of Americans wanting to switch jobs has hit a 10-year high.   

Uhh, good. Nobody should have to suffer through the "always-on" work culture. People are supposed to have lives outside of work. When I worked for companies with lots of employees, I didn't want to hang out with them after work. I had to see them all day and I had nothing in common with them anyway, so why would I want to spend my few free waking hours with people I didn't much like anyway? "The problem is only getting worse."? It sounds like it's getting better. It sounds like younger people are essentially saying that they're autonomous beings who have lives outside of the workplace.

The article talks about how "soft quitting" is more insidious than "quiet quitting" because the employee disengages from their work without actually doing anything less. What the author appears to be saying is that it is more important for employees to be willing to sell their souls to their workplace and make their jobs their identity. That's fucked up. The article also goes on to discuss solutions to this problem, but again, I don't see a problem at all. People are not…sorry, for those in the back…

PEOPLE ARE NOT THEIR FUCKING JOBS!

AI Is Here...Whee

Artificial Intelligence is the wave of the future and it's here now. Just don't expect it to be actually useful. The creators of AI want to take the burden of creativity off of our shoulders so that we can spend our time helping to make corporations richer. As a result, we will be treated to generated pictures of vaguely familiar animals and people with extra digits with that Vaseline sheen that is difficult to describe in words, but you know it when you see it. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, we will no longer have to worry about writers' block or what color will make those flowers pop off the canvas. We can now just type a prompt in shArt-AI-5 and the algorithm will do the work and produce for us a sonnet about yaks, or a painting of a seven-legged chickadee with a full mouth of teeth. That way, we can spend the rest of our lives slaving for the capitalist dream for somebody who already owns three smart yachts. We also have the up-and-comers who are throwing AI at the wall and appliances to see what will stick.

This week, CES kicks off in Las Vegas, and every upstart company will be there looking to make bank by integrating AI into whatever they can, much like their predecessor who to make "smart" toilet seats. Yes, the AI powered generation is going to be a reality and will burn down a forest to tell you that you're out of butter. The forests don't matter, though, because you can ask you ChatBS-7.3 integrated smart oven to describe a forest in vivid detail while it bakes your frozen to perfection according to it learning data collected (stolen) from all over the world.

Has it occurred to anyone that this is not what we need or even want? AI would be cute if wasn't such a drain on resources. The only people it will truly be useful to are the large, rich corporations who can afford to run it, and who don't give a shit about the environment. They feed it with the works of all of the business magnates of generations past as well as all of Ayn Rand's novels and have it spit out the most effective roadmap to crush the working class while they scream and yell about Wi-Fi Antennas.