3 ms·

I didn't say that so nice strawman. My point is C-suite executives are often wrong about new technology. They are inherently conservative.

bigstrat2003 9mo ago
It seems to me that the numbers don't lie. Either the tool is producing value (additional revenue, fewer costs) in excess of its cost, or it isn't. I don't think you need to be adept at technology to make that evaluation.
- labrador 9mo ago
  Numbers don't lie if your instrumentation is measuring the contributions of new technology accurately. The productivity gains of middle managers using personal computers, often at home bought out of personal funds, didn't show up at first either. Managers bought home computers to do spreadsheets to make their jobs easier. Those productivity gains were eventually measured.
- peterlk 9mo ago
  This is a reductionist perspective that is unhelpful. Does buying a water cooler in the office increase profit margins? What about a coffee machine? Across a wide portfolio of decisions, a business does need to be profitable. However measuring the individual impact of single vendors is often a very difficult task. How do you measure developer productivity? Code quality? Developer happiness? As far as I know, no one in the industry can put concrete numbers to these things. This makes it basically impossible to answer the question you pose.
  - imiric 9mo ago
    The survey was about operational costs and revenue. Water cooler and coffee machine manufacturers don't market their products to be "smarter than people in many ways" and "able to significantly amplify the output of people using them"[1]. If these claims are true, then surely relying on this technology should bring both lower operational costs, since human labor is expensive, and an increase in revenue, since the superhuman intelligence and significantly amplified output of humans using these tools should produce higher quality products and benefits across the board. There are of course many factors at play here, and a substantial percentage of CEOs report a positive RoI, but the fact that a majority don't shouldn't be dismissed on the basis of this being difficult to measure. [1]: https://blog.samaltman.com/the-gentle-singularity https://blog.samaltman.com/the-gentle-singularity
  - lm28469 9mo ago
    Ping me when coffee machines ceo ask for 7 trillion dollars
archagon 9mo ago
But… it’s the C-suite executives who are pushing this stuff…
- archagon 9mo ago
  One source: https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/workplace/ceos-say-ai-is-making-work-more-efficient-employees-tell-a-different-story-6613ce9d https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/workplace/ceos-say-ai-is-makin...

bigstrat2003 9mo ago

It seems to me that the numbers don't lie. Either the tool is producing value (additional revenue, fewer costs) in excess of its cost, or it isn't. I don't think you need to be adept at technology to make that evaluation.

labrador 9mo ago
Numbers don't lie if your instrumentation is measuring the contributions of new technology accurately. The productivity gains of middle managers using personal computers, often at home bought out of personal funds, didn't show up at first either. Managers bought home computers to do spreadsheets to make their jobs easier. Those productivity gains were eventually measured.
peterlk 9mo ago
This is a reductionist perspective that is unhelpful. Does buying a water cooler in the office increase profit margins? What about a coffee machine? Across a wide portfolio of decisions, a business does need to be profitable. However measuring the individual impact of single vendors is often a very difficult task. How do you measure developer productivity? Code quality? Developer happiness? As far as I know, no one in the industry can put concrete numbers to these things. This makes it basically impossible to answer the question you pose.
- imiric 9mo ago
  The survey was about operational costs and revenue. Water cooler and coffee machine manufacturers don't market their products to be "smarter than people in many ways" and "able to significantly amplify the output of people using them"[1]. If these claims are true, then surely relying on this technology should bring both lower operational costs, since human labor is expensive, and an increase in revenue, since the superhuman intelligence and significantly amplified output of humans using these tools should produce higher quality products and benefits across the board. There are of course many factors at play here, and a substantial percentage of CEOs report a positive RoI, but the fact that a majority don't shouldn't be dismissed on the basis of this being difficult to measure. [1]: https://blog.samaltman.com/the-gentle-singularity https://blog.samaltman.com/the-gentle-singularity
- lm28469 9mo ago
  Ping me when coffee machines ceo ask for 7 trillion dollars

archagon 9mo ago

But… it’s the C-suite executives who are pushing this stuff…

archagon 9mo ago
One source: https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/workplace/ceos-say-ai-is-making-work-more-efficient-employees-tell-a-different-story-6613ce9d https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/workplace/ceos-say-ai-is-makin...