[hiAndrewQuinn]

>This is a practical policy allowing me to maintain my own professional standards and remain employable in a difficult economy.

I'm interested to hear more about the rationale behind the "remain employable" part of this line.

All things equal, we would normally expect someone deliberately saying they won't use a certain tool to perform a certain job as limiting their employment opportunities, not expanding it. The classic example is people who refuse to drive for work; there are good non-employment reasons for this (driving is the most dangerous thing many people do on a daily basis) but it's hard to argue that it doesn't restrict where one can work.

I think the most likely rationale is that the author thinks that posting a no-AI policy for professional work is itself seen as a signal of certain things about them, their skill level, etc., and that wins out for the kinds of clients they wish to take on. This doesn't have to be a long- or even medium-run bet to make, given that it's cheap to backtrack on such a policy down the line. Either way it's clear from reading the measured prose that there's an iceberg of thinking behind what's visible here and they are probably smarter than I am.

[NateEag]

They're saying that if they completely refused to touch any system that has been touched by AI, they would be unable to find paying work.

Thus, they won't use it directly themselves, but are willing to work with people who do.

[lostmsu]

This is not wrong, but the comment you replied to implies the author of the comment understood that perfectly already.