4 ms·
> Further: the topline growth that AI companies are selling comes from replacing most workers with AI, and re-tasking the surviving workers as AI babysitters ("
by whstl 1y ago
> Further: the topline growth that AI companies are selling comes from replacing most workers with AI, and re-tasking the surviving workers as AI babysitters ("humans in the loop"), which won't work. Finally: AI cannot do your job, but an AI salesman can 100% convince your boss to fire you and replace you with an AI that can't do your job
This hits home. A lot of the supposed claims of improvements due to AI that I see are not really supported by measurements in actual companies. Or they could have been just some regular automation 10 years ago, except requiring less code.
If anything I see a tendency of companies, and especially AI companies, to want developers and other workers to work 996 in exchange for magic beans (shares) or some other crazy stupid grift.
- AznHisoka 1y agoSo what metric would you look at that would support the idea that AI is inproving a company?
- whstl 1y agoI guess anything other than just claims from people that have a stake in it? If companies are shipping AI bots with a "human in the loop" to replace what could have been "a button with a human in the loop", but the deployment of the AI takes longer, then it's DEFINITELY not really an improvement, it's just pure waste of money and electricity. Similarly, what I see different from the pre-AI era are way too many SV and elsewhere companies having roughly the same size and shipping roughly the same amount of features as before (or less!), but are now requiring employees to do 996. That's the definition of loss of productivity. I'm not saying I hold the truth, but what I see in my day to day is that companies are masters at absorbing any kind of improvement or efficiency gain. Inertia still rules.