> My partner (IT analyst) works for a company owned by a multinational big corporation, and she got told during a meeting with her manager that use of AI is going to become mandatory next year. That's going to be a thing across the board.

My multinational big corporation employer has reporting about how much each employee uses AI, with a naughty list of employees who aren't meeting their quota of AI usage.

> And have you called a large company for any reason lately? Could be your telco provider, your bank, public transport company, whatever. You call them, because online contact means haggling with an AI chatbot first to finally give up and shunt you over to an actual person who can help, and contact forms and e-mail have been killed off. Calling is not exactly as bad, but step one nowadays is 'please describe what you're calling for', where some LLM will try to parse that, fail miserably, and then shunt you to an actual person

All of this predates LLMs (what “AI” means today) becoming a useful product. All of this happened already with previous generations of “AI”.

It was just even shittier than the version we have today.

It isn't a universal thing. I have no doubt there is a job out there that that isn't a requirement. I think the issue is the C-level folks are seeing how more productive someone might be and making it a demand. That to me is the wrong approach. If you demonstrate and build interest, the adoption will happen.

> where some LLM will try to parse that, fail miserably, and then shunt you to an actual person.

If you're lucky. I've had LLMs that just repeatedly hang up on me when they obviously hit a dead end.

As opposed to reaching, say, somebody in an offshored call center with an utterly undecipherable accent reading a script at you? Without any room for deviation?

AI's not exactly a step down from that.