May they get utterly Forded
It’s funny because they do this to other people; they just never thought it’d happen to them. FAFO 🫡
Here’s a real a cost saving prompt:
“Translate the contents of every single document in our databases into as many languages (including dead and constructed fictional languages) as possible.”
Now you can fire the one Hispanic guy you hired because you assumed he could speak Hindi.
Anyone who fell for this grift deserves it and much worse.
People, usually who have never done the job, still love to argue that it can compete with software devs and infra engineers.
The sad part they don’t see (or maybe care about) is while it can’t currently (and absolutely not llms) they’re pushing a narrative that we should automate everyone and everything which is dangerous and moronic.
Well, we should automate everything that can be automated - for the benefit of everyone. Last part is something not seen on worldwide scale ever, just yet
I understand the argument for automation being used where appropriate to benefit us and allow us the freedom to focus on other things, however, I’m skeptical due to the social behavior already occurring from the powers that be expressing the desire to enslave us, if not just kill us, using the mere concept of AI as justification.
And funny enough, pushing this hard will only leave a bad taste regarding any mention of artificial intelligence or automation. Whereas if these people just fucked off they might have been able to sell whatever usefulness it has in the correct places.
I use AI in my job and I give it the business. Its gonna be spendy.
There’s been so much !nottheonion@lemmy.world content these days
alexa play despacito
This reporting is basically dishonest. The execs are not confused. They knew this was likely to occur, because we all told them so.
Now, you can argue that they hoped otherwise, that they were being ridiculously optimistic. But to argue that they didn’t expect it is simply unbelievable.
The modern executive who got their post from being mates with the right people, having attended the right schools and relentless self-promotion isn’t a highly analitical person who sistematically and in depth researches their options before chosing what to do.
This is unsurprising given that a system were the image one projects is critical to one’s career progression rewards almost the opposite: they’re supposed to look decisive and confident.
The myth of CxO competence is just that: a myth and the product of confusing the characteristics of the character they’re playing with the characteristics of the actor, something we’re definitelly egged on to do by the Media.
It’s only unbelievable that the execs did not expect this for those who believe the execs are actually competent at management rather than being people born in the right families and whose greatest competence is in playing the right role for the right audience.
I think you’re underestimating how clueless and braindead executives can be.
It’s the quest for infinite growth and fomo, just needed a good/bad salesman to come along
The KPMG report, initially flagged by the Register, surveyed 2,145 senior execs across 20 countries, finding that an astonishing 29 percent of them had no idea where the growing costs associated with AI were coming from.
They’re just dumb assholes
Dumb assholes that don’t read the reports or pay attention in meetings where this is cost is brought up.
Well it was cheaper before, till Ai vendors increased prices to cover the real costs
The first hit was free.
I look at AI usage at work as basically taking on a bad but salvageable employee. For every use case, it needs a manager overseeing all their work and adapting to their strengths and weaknesses while also considering cost. It’s a deployment problem created by over promising.
The salvageable employee will actually learn.
The AI doesn’t learn.
They’re only equivalent for the kind of manager who thinks investing in people is a waste of money.
We gave it a simple task of scan the internet for industry news, put results in a table formatted like x. It goes around 3-4 days before messing up. We have concluded that if it was an actual employee it would have either been sacked or put on performance review.
Yes, when employed properly it can be a helpful tool. But when it’s given all the house keys and unlimited leeway, it will burn down your house (and your budget) because it cannot make reasonable choices. It’s not sentient (yet), despite all the promises from AI evangelists.
It’s quite far from sentience, let alone sapience.
its not like its obscure though, since the signs were all there that NVIDIA, The main AI companies were looking for sucks to hold the bag.
Here is how it has gone down for a few companies I have visibillity on:
- Investors with enough stock to have influence demand the company use AI and cut staff
- remaining ataff struggles to fit AI into their now bloated workload
- quality slips and stumbles. a few employees are able to make the transition and cause huge AI bills while attempting to cover the workload
- everyone gets upset and nothing gets done well
It looks like investors who have also invested in AI are trying to push its use and it is stumbling all over the place. If a company cant adapt it is basically stripped for parts and sold off to companies that are handling it better.
If you’ve ever spent 10 minutes using an AI agent, you’d know that there’s no way to predict how many tokens it’s going to use before you give it a task. It can be $0.20 worth sometimes or $20 other times. Or anything, really.
It’s only after watching it churn away for a few minutes that you can assume it’s gotten stuck and have the option of pulling the plug before the bill gets run up too high. But you need to watch it like a hawk and you need to be the one paying the bill otherwise you’re not going to care (e.g. workers using AI at work aren’t paying for it, their company is).
Taken in aggregate across a month, that unpredictability might average out or it might explode.
Bold of you to assume these old people even engage with the business they claim to own.
i think the ones creating AI videos would be the highest costs.
Computerphile demonstrated this using copilot(timestamp 20:50), where he created a screensaver sort of thing with just a few prompt back and forth, and that used up 2 million input tokens and 47k output token. That’s about $6 to $10 just to create that screensaver.
I’d rather buy a used php book from my local bookstore for $10
I swear, execs are some of the most gullible people on earth. I know some of them, and none of them are very bright, just very greedy.
My lesson in this came really early in my career. One of our execs was selling vapourware. Just promising our product, that we hadn’t made yet, could do literally anything. Then he insisted we build it on this platform he must have had shares in the way he pushed it, only it was also vapourware and didn’t do half the things it said it did.
He found it utterly inconceivable that a company would sell a product that didn’t do what it said despite doing the exact same thing himself. He was completely delusional.
As we’ve seen with Donald Trump and George W. Bush, if you’re wealthy enough or in an aristocratic social group, you fail upwards.
And if you always fail upwards, it’s very easy to not gain the skills to succeed.
They’re not selected for intelligence, but for sociopathy.
And nepotism.
And cronyism.
Coming from the upper-middle and upper class and having attended the right schools and become mates with the right people is very highly correlated with becoming a top level executive.
I think it’s more sociopaths rising by being sociopaths and then promoting gullible idiots they can use and control with no issue, then blame when shit goes wrong
Man, if all it takes to be a CEO is to make stupid decisions, they should just hire me. I’m the master at that.
