3 ms·

> Instead of selling products based on helpful features and letting users decide, executives often deploy scare tactics that essentially warn people they will b

> Instead of selling products based on helpful features and letting users decide, executives often deploy scare tactics that essentially warn people they will become obsolete if they don't get on the AI bandwagon. For instance, Julia Liuson, another executive at Microsoft, which owns GitHub, recently warned employees that "using AI is no longer optional." So many clowns. It's like everyone's reading from the same script/playbook. Nothing says "this tool is useful" quite like forcing people to use it.

bogzz 1y ago
It definitely feels like the imbecility of the corporate class has reached new levels.
- conradfr 1y ago
  AI is not for developers only!
  - lrvick 1y ago
    AI is not for developers, it is for people that do not want to learn how to be developers but want to be paid like them.
MrGilbert 1y ago
> It's like everyone's reading from the same script/playbook. I'd assume that many CEO are driven by the same urge to please the board. And depending on your board, there might be people on it who spend many hours per week on LinkedIn, and see all the success stories around AI, maybe experienced something first hand. Good news: It's, from my estimate, only a phase. Like when blockchain hit, and everyone wanted to be involved. This time - and that worries me - the ressources involved are more expensive, though. There might be a stronger incentive for people to "get their money back". I haven't thought about the implications yet.
- Eisenstein 1y ago
  It's not like blockchain. Blockchain legitimately made things slower and less useful for dubious benefits. AI is more like the early web. There is definite value that people can see, but no one really knows how to monetize beyond the incredibly obvious 'sell people access to it', so everyone is throwing spaghetti at the wall waiting for it to stick. When someone gets it to stick, there will be a giant amount of money coming at them, but until then there will be a ton of people with sauce all over their faces looking like idiots.
  - llbbdd 1y ago
    Upvoted to save you from the negatives because I too am tired of seeing the comparison to blockchain. I'm not sure where it even comes from other than just being another recent hype train people remember, but blockchain settled into a relatively tiny niche. The most basic deployment of LLMs / AI by comparison is instantly, obviously more useful than that.
  - sleepybrett 1y ago
    As soon as it starts returning to me factual, confirm-able answers consistently. Then I'll use it. I just had to fix something a co-worker fucked up by asking ai how to do it. The responses are so confidently wrong it's like watching Kash Patel tell me that Jeffrey Epstein killed himself.
    - cheema33 1y ago
      > As soon as it starts returning to me factual, confirm-able answers consistently. Then I'll use it. Humans don't behave this way. Yet, we still employ humans. AI is unreliable. We all agree. But that does not make it useless.
      - lmm 1y ago
        Ok, how about: Once AI is less overconfident than a median teammate, it may be worth something. It's not there yet.
charcircuit 1y ago
People are biased to using tools they are familiar with. The idea that if a tool was useful people would use it simply false. In order to avoid being disrupted, extra effort needs to be made to get people to learn new tools.
- DeepYogurt 1y ago
  You're presupposing utility.
- 8n4vidtmkvmk 1y ago
  A few people will use said new tool. If they start writing software that is sustainably better for half the cost, eventually others will take notice. Early adopter sort of thing. Switching takes energy, yes, so many will be resistant. But when you find yourself the last person doing things the old way and it's taking more time and effort... It might be time to spend the effort and get with the times. Not necessarily saying this AI is worth switching to yet. It could fizzle out, we'll see. But I'm saying if it's truly worth it's salt, it'll take off because it's good, rather than die despite being good. Things that this aren't true for are things that are only marginally better. if A is 5% better but B is 95% more popular.. A might yet die because it's not worth switching to. AI is claiming a lot more than 5% gains though

bogzz 1y ago

It definitely feels like the imbecility of the corporate class has reached new levels.

conradfr 1y ago
AI is not for developers only!
- lrvick 1y ago
  AI is not for developers, it is for people that do not want to learn how to be developers but want to be paid like them.

MrGilbert 1y ago

> It's like everyone's reading from the same script/playbook. I'd assume that many CEO are driven by the same urge to please the board. And depending on your board, there might be people on it who spend many hours per week on LinkedIn, and see all the success stories around AI, maybe experienced something first hand. Good news: It's, from my estimate, only a phase. Like when blockchain hit, and everyone wanted to be involved. This time - and that worries me - the ressources involved are more expensive, though. There might be a stronger incentive for people to "get their money back". I haven't thought about the implications yet.

Eisenstein 1y ago
It's not like blockchain. Blockchain legitimately made things slower and less useful for dubious benefits. AI is more like the early web. There is definite value that people can see, but no one really knows how to monetize beyond the incredibly obvious 'sell people access to it', so everyone is throwing spaghetti at the wall waiting for it to stick. When someone gets it to stick, there will be a giant amount of money coming at them, but until then there will be a ton of people with sauce all over their faces looking like idiots.
- llbbdd 1y ago
  Upvoted to save you from the negatives because I too am tired of seeing the comparison to blockchain. I'm not sure where it even comes from other than just being another recent hype train people remember, but blockchain settled into a relatively tiny niche. The most basic deployment of LLMs / AI by comparison is instantly, obviously more useful than that.
- sleepybrett 1y ago
  As soon as it starts returning to me factual, confirm-able answers consistently. Then I'll use it. I just had to fix something a co-worker fucked up by asking ai how to do it. The responses are so confidently wrong it's like watching Kash Patel tell me that Jeffrey Epstein killed himself.
  - cheema33 1y ago
    > As soon as it starts returning to me factual, confirm-able answers consistently. Then I'll use it. Humans don't behave this way. Yet, we still employ humans. AI is unreliable. We all agree. But that does not make it useless.
    - lmm 1y ago
      Ok, how about: Once AI is less overconfident than a median teammate, it may be worth something. It's not there yet.

charcircuit 1y ago

People are biased to using tools they are familiar with. The idea that if a tool was useful people would use it simply false. In order to avoid being disrupted, extra effort needs to be made to get people to learn new tools.

DeepYogurt 1y ago
You're presupposing utility.
8n4vidtmkvmk 1y ago
A few people will use said new tool. If they start writing software that is sustainably better for half the cost, eventually others will take notice. Early adopter sort of thing. Switching takes energy, yes, so many will be resistant. But when you find yourself the last person doing things the old way and it's taking more time and effort... It might be time to spend the effort and get with the times. Not necessarily saying this AI is worth switching to yet. It could fizzle out, we'll see. But I'm saying if it's truly worth it's salt, it'll take off because it's good, rather than die despite being good. Things that this aren't true for are things that are only marginally better. if A is 5% better but B is 95% more popular.. A might yet die because it's not worth switching to. AI is claiming a lot more than 5% gains though