🆕 Never Post! AI At Work? In This Economy?

With the help of listener submissions and the insight of experts Drs Casey Fiesler and Alex Hanna, Senior Producer Hans Buetow investigates how people resist the integration of AI into the workplace, why folks might feel hesitant to broadcast that resistance, and why this topic feels so different from just a year ago. 

–

• Call us at 651 615 5007 to leave a voicemail
• Drop us a voice memo via airtable
• Or email us at theneverpost at gmail dot com

–

AI At Work? In This Economy?

• The Luddite Lab (DAIR)
• The Luddite Lab launch stream
• Global Evidence on Gender Gaps and Generative AI Over Time (HBS)

Find Dr. Casey Fiesler:

• Bluesky
• Website
• Casey’s video about AI incentivizing cheating

Find Dr. Alex Hanna:

• Bluesky
• Website

–

Never Post’s producers are Audrey Evans, Georgia Hampton and The Mysterious Dr. Firstname Lastname. Our senior producer is Hans Buetow. Our executive producer is Jason Oberholtzer. The show’s host is Mike Rugnetta.

Of course there are victims in this poem:victim victim victim victim victim victim victim victim victim victim victim victim victim victim victim victim victim victim victim victim victim victim victim victim victim victim victim victim victim victim victim victim victim victim victim victim victim victim victim victim victim you are here victim victim victim victim victim victim victim victim victim victim victim victim 

Excerpt of History by Tracy K SmithNever Post is a production of Charts & Leisure and is distributed by Radiotopia

DISCOUNT for ½ off a yearly membership – offer ends on August 17th, when stream week begins!

Friends, hello, and welcome to Never Post, a podcast for and about the Internet. I'm your host, Mike Rugnetta, and we have a resistant show for you this week. Hans talks with doctor Casey Fiesler, a professor of information science at University of Colorado Boulder, doctor Alex Hannah, director of research for the Distributed AI Research Institute, and numerous workers from various industries about being anti AI in the workplace, but being afraid to say so or knowing that by saying so, you may be setting yourself up for consequences because your boss has AI psychosis, because of some vague pronouncement about the market, because your coworkers are secretly in love with a chatbot. But hope is not lost, Hans learns. It's just a little hard to see through the thicket of slop.

First, though, we're gonna take a quick break. You're gonna listen to some ads unless you're on the member feed. And when we return, Hans, doctor Fiesler, doctor Hannah, and some of you, yes, you, our listeners about being anti AI in the workplace.

Alright. I'm going to share screen. Hopefully, it all goes apace, and nothing goes sideways.

It's May, and I'm in a webinar. And it's a really good webinar. It's about the launch of the Luddite Lab. So this is an online hub for organizing around issues of AI, and it's run by the fine folks at DARE, the Distributed AI Research Institute.

DARE or the Distributed AI Research Institute is an independent research organization conducting community rooted research as a globally distributed group of academics, activists, and engineers who believe in technology that benefits everyone.

I'm in this webinar because DARE is awesome. And this project and this webinar, they've got the word Luddite in the title, which is one of my self selected beats on Never Post. So I'm here. I'm drinking tea. I'm snacking on snacks, sesame sticks by the way, which my grandma called cat food and fed me an awful lot of when I was little.

Suddenly, get a little slack ping from our host Mike Ragneta.

I wonder if there's a segment to be had in looking at employees who are anti AI, but they're afraid to say anything because of the position that their employer takes.

I pause mid sip of tea, cat food just hanging out of my mouth, because on my other screen, webinar chat is burning up.

This is extremely timely for me. My workplace and academic library, yeah, we should know better, is going all in on AI, and nobody will promise me that I'm allowed to opt out.

There are a bunch of librarians in the chat actually finding each other, finding other people who aren't librarians.

Wow. I work at a Fortune 500 company, and I thought the AI Kool Aid was limited to the corporate world. Very worrying that academia education is embracing this madness.

The messages are collecting fast and furious about people feeling alienated by AI in their workplace, and so I spit out the cat food from my mouth. I slap on my Jordy Laforte shades and my fingerless gloves and slam on the all caps. This is exactly the webinar I'm in. Sip a tea, cat food. Oh, num num.

Okay. So the answer is yes.

I sat there watching the chat some more, and I suddenly had this weird sense memory of being at work during the pandemic and watching the Slack chat during a staff meeting while they were discussing masking or work from home, and watching people furiously on main and then also in side channels debating the biggest changes in our working lives in probably a generation. And then I remember after a while, those conversations just went away. Not that there weren't people resistant to taking off masks or coming back to the office, just that more and more each day, it seemed, everyone was just doing it. The world was changing around us and that shifted the context that turned our norms into convictions. So, yes, lol.

It's too simple, I think to myself, as I swap out my Men in Black Predator two Ray Bans. Sling on my Faraday gun bag and crack my knuckles, accepting that I need to do a Never Post story about this. Too simple. You know it's too simple. Mike knows it's too simple.

I don't know. I'd wanna get some input from folks who feel this way too.

Let's do it. Because in this episode, I want to better understand the nuances of why it can feel just so difficult to be an AI refuser at work. So, first step, do folks actually feel uncomfortable about AI in their workplaces? So, where to look? Easy.

Did you know we have a Never Post subreddit? R slash never post. Do you have a story about a moment where AI was brought into your workflow by a colleague, either mandated by the organization or not, and you had to reckon with it. Turns out people really wanna talk about AI at their workplace.

Hey, Never Post.

Hey, Never Post.

Hi, Never Post.

I saw the request on Reddit for awkward AI interactions at work.

So I'm gonna put your responses into two categories. The first was people watching their coworkers and their customers normalizing the use of AI in a work setting.

One of my coworkers has gone all in on it. I found him putting in basic math problems into it instead of just opening the calculator program. It has replaced most any critical thought in his life.

I was

asked to copyedit some text for a coworker. When I returned it, they said, thanks, Chatchipitalia, which I hope and believe, that they said with the intention of being polite, but it most certainly made me feel deeply patronized or maybe like objectified. Used beyond the regular scope of my labor for sure. Deeply grossed me out.

I work at an arcade and I have seen AI touching the Jersey Jack pinball table based off of the Harry Potter license. This table had its artwork done by an artist who uses AI tools in their process. Public reception as I've talked with other pinball players has been that they do not care about the artwork being AI generated. All that matters is how the game plays, and that is bizarre to me.

A lot of the responses in this category were about people in parallel roles, so peers and colleagues. The responses that involved supervisors or a whole organization, those tended to fall into the other category of responses, which felt a lot more existential.

I work in health care IT. It feels wretched to have no leverage to say no to something that's definitely gonna cause potentially lethal problems down the road.

For about ten years, was instructor in English, college English courses specifically. When I pushed back against kind of this AI embrace, they told me that they were bored reading the same kind of wrote paper students wrote, so I don't really care if they use AI. I mean, that's hard to, like, hear. I think we should have pride in what we do as educators and like, even if we get bored reading the same like five business letters over and over again, that's our job. Right?

I work in reality TV and documentary post production. I have a strong moral objection to using it myself, but when I'm part of a team that decides to go down an ethically dubious route as a majority or at the behest of a particularly AI obsessed showrunner, it's a very uncomfortable feeling. I mean, the nature of my role is such that, like, often the actual generation of these elements falls on me. Hey. Can you create a clone of Daniel's voice so we can have him say that he's doing x for y reasons?

In the past six months, many network AI standards have become markedly more lenient.

In the last three or four months, IT leadership has been reframing us from software developers to AI engineers. I don't think I really have any fear of losing my job to AI at this point, but I am very fairly confident that this AI engineer path is going to be what the future of my career looks like. It's been exhausting.

So with risk to reputation, risk to jobs, is it really any wonder that some people don't feel the space to be able to be viewed professionally as critical or resistant to new technologies? I mean, precarity meet judgment. I really started to understand what it meant to be wary of AI while under pro AI scrutiny when I read a post from Jazzy Minotaur who wrote, my VP of IT had a meeting where we could all share our thoughts before major AI policy decisions got made. He pretty much ignored every negative statement and acted like he only heard supportive statements. Jazzy Minatar agreed to talk with me, but only anonymously, which is, I wanna say, notably, how most people responded.

It was a meeting because our company didn't have an AI policy. So anyone using AI was more or less violating company policy. None of us wanted to be viewed as negative on a technology. It makes us seem like the old guy who's can't use an iPhone, you know, because they just aren't adapting to new technology. So all of us wanted to seem like there were a lot of positives with some negatives, But it really became kind of clear that the negatives were just gonna get ignored no matter what we brought up.

What is the risk to you if you get labeled that way?

If you get labeled that way, then you are probably viewed as only as efficient as you are the last time you started updating. So you are only as useful as the newest technology you've learned.

Look. I know that technology changes super fast and that folks need to be certified. They need to be up to speed. And I also know that the tech industry is funded by toxic optimists. But if I were in charge, which I dare you cowards.

But if I were in charge, I think I'd also value that perspective that, hey. Maybe we should apply some critical rigor to this new technology that seems to have some real risks and drawbacks. But that's not how the tech industry works or at least how the industry part of the tech industry works.

I think there is a drive to bring costs down, and the marketing is nothing but, hey, this will bring your costs down. And any skepticism towards that is more just, kind of being against the company doing better.

In the modern hierarchy of needs, it goes number one, company, end of list. Hang on a sec. Have to put on my monocle to read this. Next one. This fear of judgement?

This is everywhere in AI. Women are 25% less likely to use AI. Why? Well, a recent paper from Harvard Business School asked that question, and women cited this fear of judgment that if they were to use AI, they'd be seen as dummies who need a computer crutch to solve even basic problems. But their male counterparts are seen as bold, as mavericks, as ingenious for using AI.

And then there's the terror of your work being judged. AI allows you to suddenly sidestep that fear. Have an LLM do it? You have someone to blame when it goes tits up. This was summed up for me by our listener Talia.

There seems to be a throughline of AI use at work being about decreasing vulnerability, like minimizing the attack surface. Terror at the judgment of their professional outputs seems to drive people into the arms of AI while predictably pummeling their capacity further. I want my coworkers to know that their work is good, that their thinking on a matter is valuable, that their labor is deserving of respect.

The scope and power of this fear of judgment really hit me when Jazzy Minatar described their attitude during that meeting that they were having with their bosses.

Most of us were trying to be balanced going in. We, you know, have to look at them objectively even if we have a moral objection to AI. We have to look at it from a company's perspective.

At this point, I whipped off my specs, narrowed my eyes, lit my desk on fire, and stared Jazzy Minotaur directly in the black square that was their turned off video. Those are two powerful words that are not gonna slip by me. Why? Why do you need, if you have a moral objection to something, to put that aside and look at it from the company's perspective?

At one point, it was expected that a person who worked for a company would utilize their own ethics, their

own

morals, and utilize those in decision making. Today, though, we more or less are bowing to a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, and anything we could do that would increase their value is more or less a legal obligation for the company. When I'm acting as a human, as a person, I'm allowed my morals. I'm allowed my values, my ethics. When I'm acting as a company, I'm no longer allowed those things.

I get it. I get it. I get it. But it also feels way more bleak than I'm willing to accept. I can't really get over this idea that companies are us, and we are companies.

It's like Citizens United, but, like, the other way around, and that sucks too. So how do you be a moral person? How do you stand against it, especially with management out there ready to replace me with anyone else? Ideally, from their perspective, with an AI agent.

So obviously, social norms play a huge role here. And I think that we don't yet have very strong social norms around some of these things yet. And when we're in this position where they're sort of in the process of being formed, that's a really tricky place.

This is doctor Casey Fiesler.

I'm doctor Casey Fiesler. I'm a professor of information science at University of Colorado Boulder.

I needed Casey's help with those two words, moral objection, and how they intersect with capitalism.

The choice becomes between your morals and being able to pay your rent. Olivia, it's a ton of pressure because you might get fired if you don't use it, and that's the kind of thing that absolutely can override moral objections.

I wanna be super clear. I get it. I've done it often. And I will never judge someone for being forced to make that bargain from inside of a system. Never.

But this is a heartbreaking reminder that surviving capitalism is in a way its own moral obligation. I need to live. You need to live. And since our being alive is so dependent on our jobs, in our current system, it can come down to you versus me.

Suddenly, you're being pitted against other other people.

AI is now a them in the middle of this fight, a new combatant for the same jobs, and it's backed by these huge corporations that are talked about as being completely synonymous with the future of the entire US economy.

So I do think that there's some push that like, how do you get people to use your product? One of them is, oh my god, you're gonna get left behind and you're, you know, everyone else is gonna be like passing you, you're not going be able to get a job, and you're hearing this from students too, like I I I hear from students constantly who tell me that they think that professors should never ban AI because they all need to be using AI constantly because they think they can't get a job if they aren't like good at using AI and therefore should, you know, practice it at every opportunity.

I had wanted to talk to Casey because of a video that she had posted about this very thing, about student use of AI.

Because an interesting thing about the proliferation of generative AI is that it hasn't just created the ability to cheat, it has created incentives to cheat.

Incentives. Incentive to do something they know is bad for them. To use a tool that according to a Brown University survey of their students, around eighty eight percent of undergraduates fear is affecting their learning and cognitive capacity.

People often use AI in learning context not because they think that it's good for them, but because they assume everyone else is using it. And if they don't, they will be at a disadvantage.

Students start to assume that probably everybody else is just already in these streets, just way ahead of them, practicing AI every day. I don't know, whatever that means. The fear of judgment is just rocket fueled by the mystery of who's using it and who's not. Famously, saying to a young person, hey. Everyone's doing it over and over and over again has consequences.

Just this morning, I turned on the radio, and there was Bernie Sanders yelling at me.

We are already starting to see AI's impact. There are estimates from very credible sources that tens of millions of jobs could be lost here in The United States in the next ten years. Whole professions wiped out and young people finding it harder and harder to land entry level jobs.

Yeah. There are boogeymen everywhere. Look at these influencers and companies, and they're all adapting the tools. Look at over there. How many other people are going after this job or scholarship?

Look at all these articles about how many students are cheating with AI. Maybe maybe I'm the only one stewing about this, and I need to cheat too. It's out of my hands.

Regardless of how you might feel about AI morally or self interested concerns about your own learning or cognitive impact, you might use it anyway.

Suspicions are high that they are behind already. So are we surprised that when you hold students jobs prospects ransom, they're gonna do what you say? So what are workers, us in any sector, what are we supposed to do against that same onslaught of messaging? If you are someone who is against AI, but you're feeling all this pressure and judgment, is there another way to approach it?

I do think that there is some level of knowledge of AI and how it works that will help you use it better, like more responsibly, and if you're the person at your workplace who can explain to people why hallucinations happen, why this needs to be double checked, and different ways that you might think about using the technology that isn't going to get as much backlash. There is a level of knowledge of AI especially in terms of responsible AI use that could actually be of help in a in a company, and if you're having, you know, moral concerns about AI use, but there really is pressure for you to show some level of competence in AI or some level of use of it, then maybe that's the direction to think about. Can you be a voice of reason? At least using AI responsibly if you're gonna have to use it. So maybe that maybe that's a value add.

That's my anyway, if I if I had to have a little, glimmer of hope, silver lining.

I appreciate Casey's optimism, trying to balance moral obligation with a work obligation, and it's hard. It's hard. But I wanna talk to somebody who's maybe trying to do that. So as I say my goodbyes to Casey, I'm thinking, oh, boy. That feels like the kind of person who would be willing to use their name, who'd be willing to go on record, be vocal about this with me.

Someone who, when confronted with an AI assignment from their bosses, might say, I don't know, something like

You're gonna have employees who don't know how to do x, y, or z anymore if you outsource it to some agent or subscript. Right? Are you comfortable with that?

I gotta head to the van. I'm gonna grab my Velma glasses for this one, so let's take a quick break. My job had been to find someone who was owning their AI refusal at work, doing what they can to develop and progress norms around AI in their workplace. Amazingly, I found someone. Someone who referred to themselves as well known as the AI hater in their office, which, like Jazzy Minotaur, was a tech office.

I'm in the video game industry.

This is Liana who was unique among respondents because she allowed me to use her actual factual name. Liana is opposed to AI. And like Casey suggested, she's trying to help the folks around her to better understand the tools that are available to them.

I do my best to bring up the practical. I try my best to make the quote unquote business case. Right?

So one day, Liana's in an all staff meeting, and the company announces their new AI initiative.

And then almost immediately, because the chat was not disabled, this isn't a Zoom call, the Zoom chat explodes. If they're like artists, for example, they're like, don't do this. The programmers are like, We're like, we don't know what to use it for. And then there are people, well, actually, truly great. Like, and there are people, like, actually fighting each other, like

Wow.

In a work chat. No one is anonymous in this chat. You're learning for the first time, hey, where do you stand on this? And that was like, oh. That was hard to watch, actually.

Why? It almost I mean, it's that no religion, no politics, no AI. Right?

Oh, yeah. This feels brutal, but honestly correct. Your position on AI might be seen as a signal of the type of person that you are.

I think it's hard to be a bystander. It doesn't feel that way when you see how quick the chat's coming. You know what I mean?

Once again, I'm immediately having flashbacks to the dissolution of masking and remote work, where the shifting context has made the norms into convictions.

You have to pick. Every time you do something at work, you pick. Right?

Yeah.

Do I use this tool or not? Yeah. Every every decision you make is what are you gonna use for this? You either write your email with or without it. You either do your PowerPoint with or without it.

I already came in with my bias. I'm like, no. I'm not. I'm not touching any of this.

So Liana has been acting on her objections. She tries to show colleagues how to do pivot tables, how to do formulas in Excel instead of running AI. She copy edits her own writing, and she's getting noticed for it.

It got written in my yearly review. Lists one to two opportunities for the employee to develop in their role, And then included in that section was they at utilization portion. You should use this more. And I'm like, okay.

Yeah. How did that feel to to read slash talk to your supervisor about?

I had a feeling it was going to happen.

Okay. Why?

Because we've already talked about it. One of our employees who is relatively pro AI is like, hey, I found a way to ask it about data in Excel sheet. And I'm like, you know there's a formula for that, right? Like, you don't have to use AI for this. And then on the side, my supervisor is, hey, we can't stop people from using AI.

You shouldn't stop people or dissuade them from using AI.

What do you think it means that it got put in your performance review and is a part of your growth opportunity? What does that mean?

If I'm being pessimistic about it, it means that they can write me up for it in the future is what I keep thinking about. So I'm waiting in October to basically be like, hey, you didn't do this. Like, it's a goal and then they're gonna say I didn't meet it.

Why are you are you not meeting it?

No. I'm not meeting it.

I'm Are not you going to meet it? Are you like purposely not meeting it?

I wanna see what they do.

Wow.

I'm going to see what happens if this is genuinely something that they're tracking. Because as far as I know, there's nothing tracking our usage.

Everyone I talked to said very clearly that work has a different feeling from even a year ago. I mean, back in those halcyon days of 2025 or, you know, dare we even remember 2024, generative AI was still enough of a novelty that companies didn't need to have enterprise level solutions to it. Its use was, at least for workers, early adopters who had personal accounts, like a Claude account or a ChatGPT account, and they would use them sometimes for work. So what has changed in the last year? I think there's a case to be made that in this past year, companies realized how much of their proprietary information was being fed into these random personal AI accounts of these employees.

No agreement, no policy, and definitely no oversight of where that data was going. And I think it's likely that employers started to get nervous. And I know that it's likely that the AI companies who were all desperate for adoption, they were more than happy to provide enterprise level solutions for that nervousness. And then what I guess is that the c suite suddenly had something to be bullish on. Right?

Despite them probably not fully understanding the why of it, just the impulse for it. And you wrap all that up in these claims of efficiency and cost despite AI being neither efficient nor cheap. And now here, workers are at with each other. Some are exhausted and resigned and wondering what the hell happened.

I wonder if it would be easier if it was required. Like, this is required. We are measuring you. Yeah. It you're doing this whether we want to or not.

I wonder if that's I wonder if that's easier. I'm

not sure. In what way?

Because then you can sort of offload it and be like, I'm only doing this because it pays my rent versus we still get to pick and that gives you a lot of ownership still. It still feels personal.

Personal ownership or paying rent. Is that really the best duality available to the workers of the world? I slowly took off my eye bobs at this point and rubbed my face. I needed to get in touch with somebody who knew something about gathering together, about working as a team, about solidarity. Someone familiar, a voice in the wilderness.

My name is doctor Alex Hanna. I am director of research for the Distributed AI Research Institute. I'm a sociologist and writer on technology, labor, and politics.

And you ran the webinar that I that kicked all this off for me.

Oh, no. Sorry about that.

Oh, it was a dull it's been a delightful journey, and I have some questions about kinda where I've gotten to, if that's okay.

Mhmm.

It was at this moment right here that simultaneously both Alex and I whipped out our Breakfast at Tiffany sunglasses, slammed them onto our respective perfectly lit intensely focused visages. So if you're a worker

Mhmm.

How do folks who are in that worker class better understand their own agency? Because it does feel like agency is a word that's at the center of what we're we're talking about here. Yeah. Because Dare has done so much work with folks who are organizing organizing specifically around AI. How does solidarity and organizing, which I know are not quite the same thing Mhmm.

How do those intersect with AI being imposed at work so much more?

Solidarity is important in a few different registers. One of them is, one, being able to refuse and say no. We're not going to agree that we have to use these technologies and we're not competing we wouldn't have to compete against each other. Hard to do that alone. And so the first thing is refusal and being able to control where and when the technologies are deployed.

So that's one element of it. Another element of it is cross national solidarity. Maybe somebody is working with the outputs of an LLM, but those outputs are not coming out of the ether. There's a lot of guidance or input that has been provided by data workers. Those data workers are often not in the same workplace, they're either in a country that's far away or they are folks that are receiving a fraction of what the going wage is in a western company.

And so solidarity would look like building alliances across different job classes. And so we've seen tech workers advocate for data workers to folks in Kenya being paid $2 an hour. So that's also very, very important element of that. And I'd say that there's also a solidaristic element that comes from understanding that the nature of one's work is more than just one's tasks on paper. It's also like a cross racial, cross gender solidarity.

I mean, it's that's something that's been a dynamic in US labor at its best. It also kind of prevents this strike breaking or this kind of scabbing that that we see in industrial actions. I mean, I'd love to see solidarity with senior engineers and junior engineers. I'd love to see job solidarity with engineers and administrative assistants. Mhmm.

And that could change the nature of the relationship with technology and ensuring that folks are understanding that casualization might be happening in one area, but it could be coming for them next. Actually, we're seeing a bit of a pretty big wake up call too with a lot of people in the tech industry who were told four years to learn how to code and now it's learn how to use an LLM or you're going to be laid off. And I think solidarity is a huge anecdote to that.

I want to put one more to you and see if it makes sense that I've been musing on. Is it if part of the the weird moment where we don't have these social norms yet between all of the the ways that we're functioning because we're just kind of like, I I am I the only one who's being left out? Am I the only one not doing this? It seems to me that solidarity can also help change the perception that everyone else is using it. Change the perception that I'm gonna miss out.

Change the perception that I'm at risk if I don't. Because suddenly you're able to talk, you're able to communicate, and you're able to be like, wait, do you use it? Do you want to use it? You can have those conversations in an open way in a way that it doesn't feel like we have mechanisms or is even really appropriate in a lot of these workplaces now.

Yeah. No. A 100%. I I completely agree with that. If there are peer groups that are doing x y and z because there's not really you don't really know what's happening, then it can provide a little bit more insight.

I mean, that's one of the reasons we do our podcasts, write our book is because it is showing that there is kind of another way another way to act and be in relationship with these technologies that doesn't require you to think that you have to use them or that one must go on in the kind of technological future that you don't have as much control over as you'd like to or that could be actually empowering.

Alex, amazing. That's incredible. Thank you for that. That's that's actually a really encouraging way to look at it. Great.

I'm glad.

I'm glad.

Let's be clear. Forced adoption of AI is not happening in every workplace, but it clearly is happening. And when it's happening or it's even being explored, AI is changing our workplaces and quickly. And it's way more complicated than the machines will take our jobs. There's a moral and a practical balance that has to be made on an individual level.

What does it mean to align your values and your actions around this particular set of technologies in a work context. There's also power to be found in communicating and working on a collective level. So I think at the end of all this, despite all my fears, despite my apprehensions, what I have is two doctors, Alex and Casey, each independently telling me that there are multiple ways forward, even when the boss says there's only one. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. You. Thank you. Thank you to everyone who sent us a note, or a voice memo, or read something for us.

Thank you also to doctors Alex Hanna and Casey Fiegler. We're gonna put links to both of their work in the show notes, but we're also gonna link the Luddite Lab, which is the resource that I was watching the webinar on. It's this amazing thing, and it's made by DARE for organizing at work around issues of AI. So if you are interested in hearing about how others have done it, go and read the case studies and check out their resources. It's really interesting.

It's really powerful and really useful. We are gonna keep looking into AI in the workplace. So if you are a person who is wrangling, was wrangling, or maybe has never wrangled with AI in the workplace, send us, please, your moral quandaries or if it's the case, your smooth moral certitudes. Whatever you feel, we wanna know. Especially if what you feel is that the definitions of what AI actually does get misunderstood in your workplace.

You can find all the ways to get in touch with us in the show notes.

That is the show we have for you this week. We are gonna be back here in the main feed on or around Thursday, August 13, the week after which is our member drive stream week, during which we will unveil new merch, play new games, host new guests, and hopefully add to our proud ranks a few new members who get access to additional episodes, an ad free feed of the show, and other fun things. Do you wanna become a member? Do you want a deal, a steal, a reward for listening this far into the episode? You can click the link in the show notes, the one all the way down at the bottom.

Skip that first link. Skip all the other links all the way down there. At the very end, you will find a link to a membership discount that will run until stream week begins. You can become a member for half off a yearly membership. That's right.

$24 for one year of Never Post. They're calling it the greatest deal in podcasting. Become a member today at neverpo.st, specifically. The link all the way at the bottom of the show notes. And, you know, if you're listening to this later after stream week, sorry.

You should listen to the end of the episode. Do know we put a poem back here? Never Post's producers are Audrey Evans, Georgia Hampton, and the mysterious doctor first name, last name. Our senior producer is Hans Buto. Our executive producer is Jason Oberholzer.

The show's host, that's me, is Mike Ragnetta. Of course, there are victims in this poem. Victim. Victim. Victim.

Victim. Victim. Excerpt of History by Tracy k Smith. Never Post is a production of Charts and Leisure, and it's distributed by Radiotopia.