

sure, and that works at small scales and as long as no change is required.
when either of those two change (large projects where interdependent components become inevitable and frequent updates are necessary) it becomes impossible to use AI for basically anything.
any change you make then has to be carefully considered and weighed against it’s consequences, which AIs can’t do, because they can’t absorb the context of the entire project.
look, I’m not saying you can’t use AI, or that AI is entirely useless.
I’m saying that using AI is the same as any other tool; use it deliberately and for the right job at the right time.
the big problem, especially in commercial contexts, is people using AI without realizing these limitations, thinking it’s some magical genie that can everything.





ahhhmm…no? at least, that wasn’t the point being made by the workers.
sabotaging factory equipment was a show of intent: “we are serious about causing damage. this time it’s equipment, next time it’s you!”
the factory vandalism was a threat.
if the threat was understood as being serious, and working conditions improved as a result, no further escalation was necessary. that’s why relatively few escalations happened.
however, A) escalations DID go further on quite a few occasions, and B) the threat preventing the necessity of further escalation was the entire point.
so, no, it wasn’t “myth and legend”. it worked exactly as intended.
and it worked, because of the couple of times the threat was not taken seriously. those times made it clear that the threat is real.