4 ms·

Let's be real, 70% of staff are phoning in their jobs so badly that an AI often is just as good if not better. The real struggle will be, the people phoning it

Let's be real, 70% of staff are phoning in their jobs so badly that an AI often is just as good if not better. The real struggle will be, the people phoning it in are still going to be useless, but with AI. The rest will learn and grow with AI.

api 1y ago
For large companies this is true, and this may be the best AI coding take I have read. It's similar with full self drive. FSD is better than a bad, drunk, or texting human driver, and that's a lot of the drivers on the road.
- karn97 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - api 1y ago
    Upvote for peak HN comment.
  - blooalien 1y ago
    > FSD is way more unreliable than an average drunk driver. Than an average drunk driver, or you drunk driving? One of my first drinking buddies when I was still an alcoholic (decades ago) was actually an excellent driver when drunk, but most people I knew at that time couldn't hardly even walk let alone drive when drunk.
  - gwbas1c 1y ago
    I don't get the downvotes. When I used the free trials of FSD, It kept doing dangerous things and I kept needing to intervene. It seems a lot of people conflate the fact that the technology is impressive with the fact that it's still quite dangerous. > FSD is way more unreliable than an average drunk driver. I'm thinking you mean something like someone who blows a 0.1 or 0.12, or possibly drank 2-3 beers. (IE, someone who is impaired but probably won't get into an accident.) That would be an interesting thing to try to test objectively, because there are way more people who drive in that state, (including off-duty police officers), than a lot of people realize.
    - viraptor 1y ago
      It's a troll, or someone who actually doesn't understand the difference between an individual example and statistics. The claim is so bad it's not worth discussing.
- pornel 1y ago
  FSD in principle could be, but the overpromised misnomer we have right now isn't. Being better than a drunk driver isn't good enough when it's also worse than a sober driver. The stats of crashes per mile are skewed by FSD being mainly used in easy conditions, and not for all driving. There are real safety improvements from ADAS. For safety you only need crash avoidance, not a full-time chauffeur.
90s_dev 1y ago
It's almost like people outsourcing their job to AI are asking to get fired, not only by proving that a computer program can do their job better, but even paving the way for it!
- klabb3 1y ago
  Don’t forget that they give away the data the AI needs for training.
- highstep 1y ago
  Your job will disappear even faster with your head that deep in the sand. At least learning the new tools you can carve out a new role/career for yourself.
  - 90s_dev 1y ago
    Meh, I haven't worked in software in years, so I'm fine.
    - zikzikzik 1y ago
      Famous last words?
throw4847285 1y ago
That's an extremely self-serving narrative. I assume you're part of the 30 percent?
- pixl97 1y ago
  It's probably better to look at a group from outside. Every company of any size seems to accumulate at least some people that could be replaced with a small shell script. Where I work there are a few people that seem so questionable at their job (even though most are good) I wonder how they keep their positions. I'd rather work with AI for the rest of my life then have to deal with them again.
  - throw4847285 1y ago
    You can alter a work environment to allow some of those people to thrive (though I'm not naive enough to think that all of them will). But once somebody suited to their environment becomes convinced that their success is totally due to their own overwhelming greatness, they become impossible to work with. I would rather work in an office entirely staffed by well-meaning people struggling at their jobs than a single person like you.
- bearjaws 1y ago
  Whether I'm in the 30% or not isn't the core issue, is it? The point is about the impact AI will have based on existing work ethics. Many of us have seen colleagues who barely contribute, and AI is a tool that will either be leveraged for growth by the engaged or used as another crutch by those already disengaged.
  - throw4847285 1y ago
    I believe AI is going to degrade everybody's work ethic, regardless of current performance. I don't think it's going to act like some kind of Calibration Panel where the bottom performers are knocked out by AI, leaving the higher performers to keep cruising along confident in their skills. I believe it will make everybody worse.

api 1y ago

For large companies this is true, and this may be the best AI coding take I have read. It's similar with full self drive. FSD is better than a bad, drunk, or texting human driver, and that's a lot of the drivers on the road.

karn97 1y ago
[flagged]
- api 1y ago
  Upvote for peak HN comment.
- blooalien 1y ago
  > FSD is way more unreliable than an average drunk driver. Than an average drunk driver, or you drunk driving? One of my first drinking buddies when I was still an alcoholic (decades ago) was actually an excellent driver when drunk, but most people I knew at that time couldn't hardly even walk let alone drive when drunk.
- gwbas1c 1y ago
  I don't get the downvotes. When I used the free trials of FSD, It kept doing dangerous things and I kept needing to intervene. It seems a lot of people conflate the fact that the technology is impressive with the fact that it's still quite dangerous. > FSD is way more unreliable than an average drunk driver. I'm thinking you mean something like someone who blows a 0.1 or 0.12, or possibly drank 2-3 beers. (IE, someone who is impaired but probably won't get into an accident.) That would be an interesting thing to try to test objectively, because there are way more people who drive in that state, (including off-duty police officers), than a lot of people realize.
  - viraptor 1y ago
    It's a troll, or someone who actually doesn't understand the difference between an individual example and statistics. The claim is so bad it's not worth discussing.
pornel 1y ago
FSD in principle could be, but the overpromised misnomer we have right now isn't. Being better than a drunk driver isn't good enough when it's also worse than a sober driver. The stats of crashes per mile are skewed by FSD being mainly used in easy conditions, and not for all driving. There are real safety improvements from ADAS. For safety you only need crash avoidance, not a full-time chauffeur.

90s_dev 1y ago

It's almost like people outsourcing their job to AI are asking to get fired, not only by proving that a computer program can do their job better, but even paving the way for it!

klabb3 1y ago
Don’t forget that they give away the data the AI needs for training.
highstep 1y ago
Your job will disappear even faster with your head that deep in the sand. At least learning the new tools you can carve out a new role/career for yourself.
- 90s_dev 1y ago
  Meh, I haven't worked in software in years, so I'm fine.
  - zikzikzik 1y ago
    Famous last words?

throw4847285 1y ago

That's an extremely self-serving narrative. I assume you're part of the 30 percent?

pixl97 1y ago
It's probably better to look at a group from outside. Every company of any size seems to accumulate at least some people that could be replaced with a small shell script. Where I work there are a few people that seem so questionable at their job (even though most are good) I wonder how they keep their positions. I'd rather work with AI for the rest of my life then have to deal with them again.
- throw4847285 1y ago
  You can alter a work environment to allow some of those people to thrive (though I'm not naive enough to think that all of them will). But once somebody suited to their environment becomes convinced that their success is totally due to their own overwhelming greatness, they become impossible to work with. I would rather work in an office entirely staffed by well-meaning people struggling at their jobs than a single person like you.
bearjaws 1y ago
Whether I'm in the 30% or not isn't the core issue, is it? The point is about the impact AI will have based on existing work ethics. Many of us have seen colleagues who barely contribute, and AI is a tool that will either be leveraged for growth by the engaged or used as another crutch by those already disengaged.
- throw4847285 1y ago
  I believe AI is going to degrade everybody's work ethic, regardless of current performance. I don't think it's going to act like some kind of Calibration Panel where the bottom performers are knocked out by AI, leaving the higher performers to keep cruising along confident in their skills. I believe it will make everybody worse.