You shouldn’t expect AI to generate a finished work product yet. If you’re forcing employees to use it, teach them to used it as a starting point and then put their own personal touch on it.
If you’re making a deck, have AI generate the bones, you add the details, then polish it up with AI if you want it to look fancy. If you expect it to turn a bunch of docs into a presentation only using prompts, you’re going to have a bad time.
Or, or - now hear me out - ban the use of AI to do a job that requires a human thought process.
Yeah bc that worked for the Amish Empire.
Weird comment considering the Amish are still around and, if anything, get proven right every day (except for the sexism and racism)
Get proven right about what? Plenty of Amish sects explicitly use technology if it’s in the course of their work or business. They use power tools for furniture making, have computers to handle payments, cell phones, trucks, etc.
They just don’t use it in their personal lives.
Correct, glad you agree.
Aw, now kith
Dude you’re getting paid to not have to use your brain. I finish my work in an hour and spend the rest of the day doing a bunch of corporate culture BS that gives you visibility to the bosses that actually decide your pay. Put effort where you get the most return. Hang out with your friends in the cafeteria and talk about WoW. Tell your boss you are in a mentor circle and slap that on your quarterly review.
Now I think I’m the problem. Great.
What I really want to know is, were the people putting out workslop, putting out anything better BEFORE AI. I mean, maybe they are just using a different tool to suck.
I think instead of stating that their performance was going to be measured by the quantitative measure of how much AI they used, instead of the qualitative measure of output, while making AI available to them, the CEO might have seen different results.
It's almost like malicious compliance. "Hey everyone, do this." Then they all do JUST that. What would you expect? LOL.
Literally a meeting at work today.
Director: "Why was this requirement missed?"
PM: "Well, my understanding is that AI was used to write the requirements and that AI was also used to generate the code and perform code reviews. ...So there were no actual people who understood the requirements involved in the process. Also, this seems to be becoming more and more of a problem."
Director: "Oh. Uh... Ok. Maybe don't bring up "AI" whenever you discuss this with senior management because I'm not sure how well that will go over. Just say, 'the requirements were missed.'"
PM: ....
We need to stop replacing software devs with LLMs and instead replace managment with LLMs!
Couldn't be any worse
No one read the PRD in detail! Shocking
Edit: This is what meetings should actually be used for. Going through line by line and reading the document aloud to sanity check and discuss potential misses imo
This is what meetings should actually be used for. Going through line by line and reading the document aloud to sanity check and discuss potential misses imo
That would actually make meetings a valuable use of our time which is exactly why it won't happen.
Is the AI is being used what's the Project Manager for?
You asked for it, you got it.
Yeah, good employees state their grievance, but if management insists, they just go into bot mode and do what has been commanded until they switch jobs. And bad employees are happy to blame AI.
So if management demands use of AI rather than just offering AI as yet another tool that may or may not be used at the discretion of the employee, output quality will either stay the same or degrade because AI can't do the actually important job - quality assurance.
The moral of the story: if you aren't actually experienced doing the job yourself, do not tell your workers how to do the job. Trust your senior workers to do that.
This is actually an argument I was having about two hours ago with my managers. They want to replace a bunch of low level workers with AI, and have the remaining low level workers use the AI to do the job of the lost workers. Their justification for this is that the engineers have been using AI for over a year now and performance has improved, (I don't actually know if performance has improved, but they say it has).
And what you said was basically my point, sure performance improves when engineers use AI because the people using the AI, are engineers, they can tell when the AI has given them something worth working with, and they can tell when it hasn't. The low level workers can't do that, I had an argument with one of them this morning because they kept insisting that the computer tower was a CPU, and kept calling it that. How is someone like that going to be able to tell if the AI has given them good output or not?
I think it's more likely the engineers are made to spend a bunch of time writing meaningless fluff emails nobody reads and now they use AI to generate emails that the manager summarises with AI and pretends to read.
"What separates workslop from low-quality work done by humans is that workslop looks legitimate on the surface while lacking the components that would make it useful."
Lacking optional things like the truth/verifiable fact, substance/depth of any kind, a basic contextual understanding of the shared reality of the broader team or vendors, an actual point of view beyond the status quo and any creative thought or truly new ideas.
Maybe you shouldn't have insisted your employees use it then, in the hopes that you'd be able to fire most of them.
The hope is to fire all of them. The plan is to fire most of them.
Then after the company crashes they'll pull their golden parachute and take a position at the next doomed company.
Dude donated a shit ton of money to slop Linux (omarchy). What did he expect?
Well, yeah, the problem with LLMs in a professional context is exactly that the second order effects of using them are so bad that they wipe out the direct effect gains (the time saving in creating the text).
It's fine for entertainment if all you want is to be distracted for a while with some somewhat bland chewing-gum for the brain.
CEO Tobias Lütke... told employees last year that using AI is "a baseline expectation," and they should first prove they "cannot get what they want done using AI" before asking for more resources.
Isn't this an example of Play stupid games, win stupid prizes?
It looks like an example of Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
He said AI is helping workers produce more output, but the quality of it is so bad that their colleagues have to spend more time fixing it
Everyone predicted this. Why the fuck didn't the billionaires? What is their major malfunction?
If a billionaire bought a ticket to the Powerball lottery and won they would attribute that win to their superior "genius", "work ethic" and deep strategy.
Survivorship bias is a helluva drug.
They are still making money hand over foot and they've doubled down on it. I smell bubble getting larger before pop.
I got let go from a job about a year ago because I said this and showed the data to support my claim in reaponse to why it was taking me a while to complete some work. I was "not a good culture fit"
They're all conservatives. Conservatives are profoundly unintelligent by nature. Just the dumbest cockroaches to ever infest a planet.
Not even predicted. This is what everyone realized the second they started having to use Ai tools at work. This has been wide knowledge for a year or two, and likely known by those doing early tests with it prior.
Oh it is simple, they are fucking dumb. Always have been. If they do have some brain cells to rub together they will get stuck on short term gains for themselves which in the long run is fucking dumb.
Either way you slice it dumb, just fucking dumb.
We don't live in a meritocratic society, especially at the higher levels.
Right mommy, right daddy, right school, knowing the right people, right way of talking - that's far more important to end up a CEO than competence.
I'm surprised it's not more obvious. Tons of CEOs tank their companies and fail upwards into boards and other CEO positions of multi-billion dollar companies because they completely mismanaged the company but somehow rich people are geniuses?
We're all supposed to believe that the rich are rich because of their own merit and the poor are poor because of their own lack of merit, so that we don't force the rich contribute more to the public pot so that the poor aren't poor.
So the relentless propaganda we're bombarded with in the media is that the rich are great and amazing people who got to were they are due to their hard work and intelligence (notice how Bill Gate's mother who was a member of the board of IBM was never mentioned in the press when talking about "his" success with Microsoft) whom we should all look up to whilst in the last couple of decades we've been seeing more and more in the rightwing press stories about how the poor are lazy and dependent on benefits (aka social security if in America).
The poor aren't the ones who own TV Channels, Newspapers and (in countries that have that) end up in the boards of publicly owned TV Channels and Newspapers.
Because they always think they're the exception and everyone else is doing it wrong.
It's not uncommon with narcissists.
Because they always think they’re the exception and everyone else is doing it wrong.
They are wrong in this belief because being idiots they don't have the capacity to be aware that they are idiots. But generally this belief is true. It is more positively expressed in these words: “If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself.” When I look at the dismal state of software, I see crap everywhere. With the rise of slop generators this is bound to become worse.
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
