Really? I am curious how this could be disruptive in any meaningful sense. Whose feelings could possibly be hurt? It just feels like it would be getting offended from a course on libraries because the course talks about how sometimes the book is checked out.

Any executive who is fully bought in on the AI hype could see someone in their org recommending this as working against their interest and take action accordingly.

Yes. This is the issue.

"not on board", "anti-innovation", "not a team player", "disruptive", "unhelpful", "negative".

bye bye bye bye....

I see a lot of devs and IC's taking the attitude that "facts are facts" and then getting shocked by a) other people manipulating information to get their way and b) being fired for stating facts that are contrary to received wisdom without any regards to politics.

> I just feels like it would be getting offended from a course on libraries because the course talks about how sometimes the book is checked out.

If it was called "Are libraries bullshit?" it is easy to imagine defensiveness in response. There's some narrow sense in which "bullshit" is a technical term, but it's still a mild obscenity in many cultures.

What would be a better title? "Hallucinating" seems inaccurate. Maybe "Untrustworthy machines"? "Critical thinking"? "Street smarts for humans"? "Social studies including robots"?

How about "How to thrive in a ChatGPT world"?