3 ms·
People in small teams with managers promoted from within could probably have had this in mind. Big Corporate managers are much more likely to have felt the nee
by clickety_clack 4mo ago
People in small teams with managers promoted from within could probably have had this in mind.
Big Corporate managers are much more likely to have felt the need to “do AI” from their VPs, who in turn got it from the executive team, who have probably been under fire to produce a coherent magical AI strategy that makes to company scale infinitely while reducing costs. In that environment it’s much more likely to be copy-and-pasted charts from Gartner and buzzwords overheard at conferences, combined with the hope that somebody somewhere will eventually turn it all into something that resembles forward movement.
- tsunamifury 4mo agoThis exactly. Gartner and McKinsey were paid by openAI and Anthropic to sell executive teams on AI usages 20xing profits while cutting spend 70%. And if they don’t immediately make the front end investment now they would be left behind by their competitors. The presentations were convincing and many bought large upfront wholesale tokens then forced them on their employees. When the savings didn’t materialize and neither did the profits. And the spend was no longer going down but up, many execs rather than admit they were duped began blaming workers at scale for not making up for their stupid decision. This is the “get them addicted” part of the platform play. The problem is unlike any successful drug this was expensive and low payoff.