But I think there’s an important psychological dimension to this: bosses are especially easy to trick with AI when they’re being asked to believe that they can use AI to fire workers who are in a position to tell them to fuck off.
… What a relief it would be to fire everyone who is professionally required to tell you to fuck off when you want them to do stupid and/or dangerous things …
This also explains why media bosses are so anxious to fire screenwriters and actors and replace them with AI. … The difference is that the writers will call you a clueless fucking suit and demand that you go back to your spreadsheets and stop bothering them while they’re trying to make a movie, whereas the chatbot will cheerfully shit out a (terrible) script to spec. The fact that the script will suck is less important than the fact that swapping writers for LLMs will let studio bosses escape ego-shattering conflicts with empowered workers who actually know how to do things.
It also explains why bosses are so anxious to replace programmers with chatbots. … Tech companies had business-wide engineering meetings where techies were allowed to tell their bosses that they thought their technical and business strategies were stupid.
They’ve invested so much money and infrastructure into AI that it’s impossible not to push it, even if it is more expensive with worse results. They’re too deep in the rabbit hole now and they know it. Everyone was betting on the next step of AGI and it turns out the step is a mountain that they may never scale. And of course, when the bubble pops, the executives will be fine and we’ll be left to foot the bill.
deleted by creator
Is it just me or does reality start to leak through occasionally now even in mainstream financial media?
Yes. That’s what I’ve been saying for a while. Without VC money to subsidize it, AI is fucking expensive. Literally the only reason anyone is paying for it is because it’s so cheap it’s barely worth it. Once the price goes up 10x, nobody’s gonna be interested.
without?
VC - venture capital.
That may be true, but a human will also do a better job.
That does not have to be true. A human can also do a very bad job if they want.
However, humans can be fired, but Claude cannot. Humans are also more capable of generalized learning and following procedures meant to increase quality. Moreover, quantity of human output is roughly proportional to skill in aggregate, which can limit the damage that can result from incompetence if correct safeguards and procedures are put in place.
This seems a temporary issue. AI is heuristic, afaik. If the bubble burst doesn’t sink it, it will steadily improve until companies decide it’s more profitable to make it worse. This is, of course, presuming the goal isn’t to dumb down westerners even more.
On these wages?
“AI - pay more for more incompetence”
Tell me, can your AI employees and the AI employees of other companies buy your products?
shocked_pikachu.jpg
