I didn’t forget that part. The article indicates that they have job openings that they are simply not getting applicants for. Throwing more money at staffing won’t fix that, you can’t magically spawn qualified people out of nothing.
I seem to be the only person in this thread who’s actually reading and responding to the article, and every response I give instantly gets hit with downvotes. Do people simply want to be angry about AI, and so anything that might interfere with the purity of that anger is unwelcome? Maybe we should just have a daily thread with a title of simply “How about that AI, huh?” That people can post angry comments in without fear of meaningful interruption.
SLC has a glut of qualified people that could staff these offices, the fact they only got a 4% COL raise this year tells you most of why they might have trouble keeping people. The COL of SLC has absolutely skyrocketed since 2019.
But that’s actually besides the point, you know the real joke about this, they say there are 15 open positions, yet when you search for dispatch job postings, they don’t list any, that’s from their own site – only if you dig through SLC’s specific job portal do you even find a single posting for dispatch.
Maybe they should spend less time on AI and more time trying to hire actual people.
No, but I think a minimal threshold for giving those concerns consideration should be some indication that the people with those concerns have read the article.
Glitchvid, for example, has actually gone to the trouble to search job listings on their site. That is a sign of concern worth considering. First one I’ve seen in this thread.
Oh, I’m not forgetting I’m on Lemmy, I know I’m in a strongly anti-AI bubble here. I just think it’s important for bubbles to be challenged, and this particular article seemed to be drawing a particularly strong knee-jerk reaction. I seem to have got a few people to actually read it, at least.
At the end of the day it’s not like upvotes or downvotes here matter. These AI systems will get implemented or not based on real-world considerations, not whether it’s popular in some particular niche online. It’s just nice to keep informed.
I didn’t forget that part. The article indicates that they have job openings that they are simply not getting applicants for. Throwing more money at staffing won’t fix that, you can’t magically spawn qualified people out of nothing.
I seem to be the only person in this thread who’s actually reading and responding to the article, and every response I give instantly gets hit with downvotes. Do people simply want to be angry about AI, and so anything that might interfere with the purity of that anger is unwelcome? Maybe we should just have a daily thread with a title of simply “How about that AI, huh?” That people can post angry comments in without fear of meaningful interruption.
SLC has a glut of qualified people that could staff these offices, the fact they only got a 4% COL raise this year tells you most of why they might have trouble keeping people. The COL of SLC has absolutely skyrocketed since 2019.
But that’s actually besides the point, you know the real joke about this, they say there are 15 open positions, yet when you search for dispatch job postings, they don’t list any, that’s from their own site – only if you dig through SLC’s specific job portal do you even find a single posting for dispatch.
Maybe they should spend less time on AI and more time trying to hire actual people.
Thank you for being the first person in this thread to actually go to any sort of effort to dig up factual counterarguments.
Just because you supposedly read the article, doesn’t dismiss our concerns.
No, but I think a minimal threshold for giving those concerns consideration should be some indication that the people with those concerns have read the article.
Glitchvid, for example, has actually gone to the trouble to search job listings on their site. That is a sign of concern worth considering. First one I’ve seen in this thread.
You have no proof that I had or hadn’t. So, it is my word against yours.
The one thing you forgot is that you are on Lemme. So of course everybody wants to be upset about AI. That’s like par for the course.
Oh, I’m not forgetting I’m on Lemmy, I know I’m in a strongly anti-AI bubble here. I just think it’s important for bubbles to be challenged, and this particular article seemed to be drawing a particularly strong knee-jerk reaction. I seem to have got a few people to actually read it, at least.
At the end of the day it’s not like upvotes or downvotes here matter. These AI systems will get implemented or not based on real-world considerations, not whether it’s popular in some particular niche online. It’s just nice to keep informed.