upvote
> If you're getting laid off, the only thing that really matters is the severance package.

I don't think this is true. Humans typically prefer "thanks for the hard work, here's your severance" to "you suck, here's your severance, loser."

Humans like being treated with respect, and words are a big part of that. Money is nice, but it's not the only thing we care about.

reply
The difference between the "thanks" email and the "loser" email is that the second one is intentionally disrespectful.

I'm not convinced a polite but AI-written email hits the same note. At the very least it's unintentionally disrespectful, which isn't a direct challenge. Your boss doesn't care enough to write an email by hand, but also doesn't care enough to burn bridges and insult you.

reply
> At the very least it's unintentionally disrespectful

There is ZERO CHANCE they have used ai unintentionally

> also doesn't care enough to burn bridges and insult you.

By actively using ai they are stating that you are so much beyond them that even a personal "eff you" is not worth the time. One would have to actively try and poke some personally hurtful areas to come off more insulting than use of ai.

reply
So it isn't disrespectful, and neither is it respectful. A perfect nothing, not a thought or care involved. Like a 1-click eCard mailer.
reply
Genuine question. Let's say you are bad with words.

If you ask AI to generate hundred different paragraphs and choose the one which best conveys what you actually feel and want to communicate.

Is it is still a perfect nothing?

reply
> Is it is still a perfect nothing?

You do get how that's worse, right? The person rather spends their time arguing with the clanker than thinking about the person and putting those thought into words, however unstructured they are.

reply
Yeah, but communication is a two-way street. It might not matter to me that my words are unstructured, but it will to the person I'm writing to if they can't make head nor tail of what I'm saying, or worse, misunderstand it as being insulting when it isn't.
reply
There is a whole industry built around [mis-]conception that people will take less offense on the content if it was presented differently. The predictable result is that it is actually rewriting content, not the presentation or tone. No amount of linkedinese corporate fluffery will wash off the core message that people are getting laid off unless you outright hide the message under ambiguity of double-speak like "slimming down operations", which can mean multiple things.

So essentially you have three choices:

1. Spend time writing (or have written by a copywriter) in corporate fluff dialect, where the actual message is still understandable by all parties. At the cost of appearing tone deaf.

2. Spend time reiterating with a bot that speaks some undefined sub-dialect of LLMinese where the reception of the message is unknown. At the cost of appearing even more tone deaf and insulting than a corporate cog.

3. Spend time restructuring message in genuine voice. At the cost of maybe being heard more harshly than intended.

I fail to see how option 2 can be perceived as anything but the worst, unless you assume that the target audience does not distinguish LLMinese from actual speech.

reply
But what if was "Thanks for the hard work, here's your legal minimum severance" vs "You suck, here's a lavish severance so you don't ever come back"?
reply
Words are fake, money is real.
reply
In Fire & Blood, it is said "words are wind, but wind can fan a fire," so be polite folks.
reply
deleted
reply
It's the only thing crypto folks care about, so idk, I think it's fitting.
reply
There are other audiences, too.

One group are the ones who are staying. They lose teammates, they have to restructure work and fear whether there will be another round soon, which may hit them.

And then there are customers, investors, ... who need to be assured they are not dealing with a failing company.

reply
If the main guy's email is written by AI, at this point we're actually in an invasion of the body snatchers scenario.

Who actually is required?

.. fundamentally, it's only the person collecting payment.

reply