All this article is showing is that a large number of CEOs are swayed by hype and make poor decisions. What other poor decisions are they making all the time?
I am thoroughly convinced that the MBA is the most useless degree ever because when you look at how large businesses run so poorly, and are run by MBAs.
Look I want kids to grow up and be able to pursue any passion they want, but we have to ask serious real world questions here about Austerity and I am starting to think we should entirely cut MBA programs and in general business education.
I know that sounds extreme, but we have to focus on training kids on skills that will actually be productive, useful and lead to new breakthroughs. We clearly need to fund the hard stuff like art, music and theater or we are going to collapse as a society and continue to fall behind more competitive nations because we got distracted by fluff and empty ideologies masquerading as knowledge, MBAs being exhibit A.
Because the thing that makes American companies make money isn't the production of better products its "business magic" that games stock prices. its been that way for a long time.
Are they? Rakuten is led by a business guru and the products are subpar unless they bought them. Also Japan has a huge deficit of native (software) engineers, so most of the engineers at this kind of companies are Chinese and Indian.
Which companies are you thinking about?
That's possible, I don't know about the heavy industries. Checked for Toyota, founder was an engineer, second family CEO was also engineer, third was MBA, current CEO is not from the family and is an engineer. In any case, I don't think having an engineer CEO guarantees anything, aren't the GAFAM mostly led by engineers but got enshitifified for short term profit anyways?
A lot of it isn't an "insistence" per se as much as it's company founders who did have some kind of connection with the product the company makes dying or retiring and getting replaced with people who don't.
Ironically, the MBA was originally created as a way for people with degrees in more "boots on the ground" positions to learn about business so they could more easily move into management positions. What it's morphed into is unfortunate.
The purpose of business school MBAs is nothing more than networking. These degrees cost a fortune, and that's exactly the point: to bring opportunists together. I'm almost sure it's next to impossible to fail this degree, because it's not about knowledge at all, but merely about gaining entry into senior management.
Sort of, there are actually smart people who go there too. The kids with connections to the jobs pull smart kids with them and then use them as workhorses and basically claim all the glory from their work. Then you might get poached by someone willing to pay more who is less abusive.
I find it interesting how Sam Altman has the same continuous vocal fry Elizabeth Holmes used to have. It's infuriating how well a cheap impression of gravitas performs with investors.
Its definitive proof that we live in an anti-meritocratic society, that is ruled by nepotism and violent and dangerous sociopaths.
Yes, its violence if it goes through a complex system for the violence to happen, is done indirectly.
So yeah, our lives are ruled (and ruined) by utterly incompetent dangerous sociopaths, who will gleefully destroy the entire economy because... they like buzzwords and feeling like they are smart.
We either need to kill these people, or they will kill all of us, just give it a decade.
Meanwhile, small family-owned businesses struggle so hard financially, but make miracles to stay afloat for decades, taking the most viable long-term decisions, despite the lack of options and resource. And these people often have no formal education in the area, just the survival instinct and the pressure of a family to feed.
But they can be made to look good on paper. That's where it counts. At least for the people being paid to make those bad decisions and obfuscate it with "good" numbers.
You are correct. The issue is one of projection. CEOs and MBAs think AI is amazing and can replace everyone because it can replace them. They are the ones replaceable. So they think AI is so amazing and they should use it to replace everyone else.
Folks doing actual work with meaningful output absolutely can and should use AI as a force multipyer where applicable, but they know they're meaningful work can't be fully replaced.
Broken systems elevate psychopath leaders into positions of wealth and power, and people who want those things exploit the fastest path there by getting degrees who put you on that track.
By this MBA logic, do we close CompSci for the the poor code coming out of Microsoft, close Law Schools because social rights are being lost, engineering schoolings because infrastructure doesn't meet current needs?
My point is to blame the CEOs and their shitty behaviour, not the schools that, to my knowledge, try to educate reasonable policy, law, ethics, HR, etc.
What school encourages ethical business practices? Most schools have a 1 credit hour class on business ethics, but really teach you legalism and how to avoid breaking the law. Nowhere are they teaching actual ethics in business
The point is we don't need more MBAs, we need people educated in useful skills. Should every MBA program be closed? No probably not, but we definitely have way more than we need. Cutting funding for things like MBA scholarships and closing down the majority of those programs will go a long way towards moving the majority of potential future MBA students into useful programs. We need less managers and more engineers, fewer CEOs and more chemists, hell fewer analysts and more plumbers.
There are many problems with modern capitalism and even if we never handed out another MBA degree again that would not even remotely solve everything, but the MBAs are making the problem worse. It's a minor thing but it's an easy thing to do and it would make a difference small as it is.
I think organizing labor is a useful skill. I just think doing it to the sole benefit of "shareholder value" is what's killing us. Is that liberal of me? I can't imagine a society where work isn't done by people and work needs some form of organization.
Sure it's a useful skill but not one in significant demand. We have an absolute glut of MBAs and a desperate need for anything but an MBA so why are we paying people to get more MBAs?
Any bad decision that's made by an exec is usually just met with nods and grins by the workers while they do what's actually necessary and try only half heartedly to follow their edicts. Execs usually have no idea what a pilot program is and every decision they make is pure gold so why not roll it out to everybody at once.
One factor here is that they are all under pressure from their boards and investors not to miss the AI wave and get left behind. All companies are doing some level of AI theater. Some actually believe it. But it’s not like hundreds of CEOs all came to this judgment purely on their own, with no outside influences. It’s a mass craze.
CEOs keep trying to shoehorn AI into replacing skilled labor positions, when the positions that AI could easily replace are obviously CEOs and the rest of the executive suite. Obviously they are so shit at their jobs that they can't research well enough to make informed decisions about tech implementation.
Other than being a money vacuum, there isn't a single thing that CEOs do better than an LLM. Replace them, give their fat paychecks to the employees, and watch the company do better than it ever has.
I hate AI, but it's still preferable to sociopath capitalists.
The article is sort of interesting and I hope people take a gander rather than headline skim to affirm a bias and internally bridge the narrative gap.
The article says the report blames the lack of payoff on lack of implementation rather than on AI tooling itself. That is, companies need to fully integrate with AI because piecemeal isn't working. Quite the opposite of what many people commenting here are assuming the takeaway was.
That means even more bad times ahead for people who wake up every morning and make the world happen and society function. Assuming PwC's advice is taken to heart and job displacement remains the primary motivator rather than force multiplication.
I tend to be skeptical of the reactionary AI is always slop trend. I'm sympathetic to it because it's a response to the hype machine that knows no prudence. But damn when you say
"Your next move: Build AI foundations. Our work with organisations confirms mounting evidence that isolated, tactical AI projects often don’t deliver measurable value. Tangible returns come from enterprise-scale deployment consistent with company business strategy."
I read this as marketing. What's the evidence you've been gathering? Why do you believe your projects are applicable to all companies? What happens if we invest and it doesn't help like you say it will?
This is like saying the solution to your relationship troubles is having a baby. No... No this is not the solution. Make my smaller projects work and show return and then we talk larger commitments.
Exactly, the vision was flawless, it will all be blamed on the execution. The people who failed to build it will be held accountable though; departments of them…
Sure, the majority aren't seeing a payoff. But we only really care about the Magnificent Seven and their increased revenue from government contracts (particularly Pentagon weapons platforms and public-private surveillance deals).
And they can't afford to stay behind in their opinion. If there's a chance general AI works and they're not using it when it kicks in, they're going to be left behind in the dust.
Of course this would also shake apart the labor market, the remaining taters of the social fabric and the economy, but that's a problem for next quarter.
Everydown turn there are layoffs and loss of talent. They alweys find something 'unique' to blame it on. Then things recover and they hire people who learn it again.
until 10 years have passed I refuse to call ai job loss anything other than the latest iteration of that pattern. Time will tell.
Most CEOs say their companies aren’t yet seeing a financial return from investments in AI. Although close to a third (30%) report increased revenue from AI in the last 12 months and a quarter (26%) are seeing lower costs, more than half (56%) say they’ve realised neither revenue nor cost benefits.
I'd love to know more about that 30% reported increase and how real it is (I know this is never going to happen). Is it a) Nvidia<=>OpenAI b2b stuff where they increased revenue by grifting some other CEO b) massaging the numbers to make it look like AI is popular - Microsoft Office+Copilot style or c) there is genuinely something valuable that people are buying
I feel like there is a whole lot of b) going on with companies baking AI into popular products and then going "ooh line gonup, must be AI" but I could be wrong.
Yet again those at the top waste untold sums of money and resources on the new shiny and everyone else is left to deal with the mess they created. While they float away on their golden parachute.
But they will keep pumping money into it, laying off workers over it, and alienating consumers with it all the same. The global economy is an AI-based Ponzi scheme.
no.. trying to live forever is capitalist. It's in tune with injecting oneself with the plasma of youth, obssessing over telomeres and likewise being unwilling to let go of their insatiable life of greed
You mean they couldn't just stop paying their workers?
I thought AI was supposed to replace all that FTE overhead that gets in the way of shareholder profits!!!!!111111oneoneoneoenone
Business morons who don't understand tech is what this bubble is all about. I can't believe so many businesses have sunk hundreds of billions of dollars into technology that fundamentally cannot do what they fantasize it to do.
That's sort of a weird concept to me because in the businesses I have seen most people don't want to use AI, and the ones that do are on teams that have access. Just seems like pushing a tool to people who don't want to learn how to use it.
I just got a work complaint from an angry client about my rep’s performance. Well over 50 emails over 4 weeks, it was a lot to review. I had ChatGPT give me a summary of the client complaint and it highlighted just where my side started to fall apart. I hate the slop, but this time it helped
Sure, but how does that make anyone money? You saved time not reading, and your time is worth money sure, but not the untold amounts of money and infrastructure that AI has cost. Your place of work still has an angry client, and you still have the same issues with the rep but now with a risk of the LLM hallucinating something in the summery. Lets say you fire the rep for what was in the summery and it turns out they did not do whatever was said and you have a lawsuit (and I would hope some loss of sleep)? I think generative AI peaked at things without stakes like "Harry Squatter and the Chamber of Gains" and has just been a solution looking for a problem even since.
More to the point this was always going to end this way without a path to profit (I know a terrible term) OpenAI alone is losing something like $12 Billion a quarter, and although maybe ads will help their bottom line it will also make that final step into the sort of hell no one wants.
Its nice with chat bots like chat gpt but companies who bet on their own Ai... Or who believe they will be the next billion dollar Ai startup.... I dont believe in any of that.
I think we pretty much have seen what is going to come from Ai. Chat bots. People will pay for those, specially programmers. But also other people. Outside of that.... I cant see much value to pay for. Nothing in fact.
Only 12 percent reported both lower costs and higher revenue, while 56 percent saw neither benefit. Twenty-six percent saw reduced costs, but nearly as many experienced cost increases.
So 38% saw benefits from AI, whereas "nearly" 26% saw cost increases from it. One could just as easily write the headline "More companies experience increased benefits from AI than experience increased costs" based on this data but that headline wouldn't get so many clicks.
104 Comments
stoly@lemmy.world · 267 pts · 216d
All this article is showing is that a large number of CEOs are swayed by hype and make poor decisions. What other poor decisions are they making all the time?
I am thoroughly convinced that the MBA is the most useless degree ever because when you look at how large businesses run so poorly, and are run by MBAs.
thesohoriots@lemmy.world · 72 pts · 216d
As I’ve always said, defund MBAs
supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz · 55 pts · 216d
Look I want kids to grow up and be able to pursue any passion they want, but we have to ask serious real world questions here about Austerity and I am starting to think we should entirely cut MBA programs and in general business education.
I know that sounds extreme, but we have to focus on training kids on skills that will actually be productive, useful and lead to new breakthroughs. We clearly need to fund the hard stuff like art, music and theater or we are going to collapse as a society and continue to fall behind more competitive nations because we got distracted by fluff and empty ideologies masquerading as knowledge, MBAs being exhibit A.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 4 pts · 215d
defund it in the universities and turn that resource to STEM which always anemic, unaccrediate them.
bagsy@lemmy.world · 58 pts · 215d
In Japan, engineeing companies are run by the engineers which I think is the better way.
Ill never understand why American companies insist on being led by business majors who know nothing and dont care about the product being built.
Opisek@piefed.blahaj.zone · 28 pts · 215d
Line go up
Bluegrass_Addict@lemmy.ca · 12 pts · 215d
except for now where that line isn't doing shit but getting shoved far up their greedy asses
UnspecificGravity@piefed.social · 16 pts · 215d
Because the thing that makes American companies make money isn't the production of better products its "business magic" that games stock prices. its been that way for a long time.
Mondez@lemdro.id · 2 pts · 214d
Sadly the virtuous circle of profits being put back into research and development seems badly broken in so many business now.
oce@jlai.lu · 3 pts · 215d
Are they? Rakuten is led by a business guru and the products are subpar unless they bought them. Also Japan has a huge deficit of native (software) engineers, so most of the engineers at this kind of companies are Chinese and Indian. Which companies are you thinking about?
bagsy@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 215d
i always thought the car makers and other manufacturers were engineed led. I admit i am no expert in modern Japanese business.
oce@jlai.lu · 1 pts · 214d
That's possible, I don't know about the heavy industries. Checked for Toyota, founder was an engineer, second family CEO was also engineer, third was MBA, current CEO is not from the family and is an engineer. In any case, I don't think having an engineer CEO guarantees anything, aren't the GAFAM mostly led by engineers but got enshitifified for short term profit anyways?
SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 215d
Making money by shuffling money around.
angstylittlecatboy@reddthat.com · 1 pts · 214d
A lot of it isn't an "insistence" per se as much as it's company founders who did have some kind of connection with the product the company makes dying or retiring and getting replaced with people who don't.
Ironically, the MBA was originally created as a way for people with degrees in more "boots on the ground" positions to learn about business so they could more easily move into management positions. What it's morphed into is unfortunate.
DandomRude@lemmy.world · 25 pts · 215d
The purpose of business school MBAs is nothing more than networking. These degrees cost a fortune, and that's exactly the point: to bring opportunists together. I'm almost sure it's next to impossible to fail this degree, because it's not about knowledge at all, but merely about gaining entry into senior management.
Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works · 9 pts · 215d
Sort of, there are actually smart people who go there too. The kids with connections to the jobs pull smart kids with them and then use them as workhorses and basically claim all the glory from their work. Then you might get poached by someone willing to pay more who is less abusive.
stoly@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 214d
The smart ones work in research and teaching.
SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 22 pts · 215d
See also: investment in Theranos.
These people are so easy to fucking scam with buzzwords and the right "look."
cazssiew@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 215d
I find it interesting how Sam Altman has the same continuous vocal fry Elizabeth Holmes used to have. It's infuriating how well a cheap impression of gravitas performs with investors.
SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 215d
Ha, exactly, just like how Holmes dressed like Steve Jobs.
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 19 pts · 215d
I mean... its worse than that.
Its definitive proof that we live in an anti-meritocratic society, that is ruled by nepotism and violent and dangerous sociopaths.
Yes, its violence if it goes through a complex system for the violence to happen, is done indirectly.
So yeah, our lives are ruled (and ruined) by utterly incompetent dangerous sociopaths, who will gleefully destroy the entire economy because... they like buzzwords and feeling like they are smart.
We either need to kill these people, or they will kill all of us, just give it a decade.
Rooster326@programming.dev · 17 pts · 215d
AI is the new "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM".
You're either following the crowd or getting replaced by someone who will. Its insane
morto@piefed.social · 13 pts · 215d
Meanwhile, small family-owned businesses struggle so hard financially, but make miracles to stay afloat for decades, taking the most viable long-term decisions, despite the lack of options and resource. And these people often have no formal education in the area, just the survival instinct and the pressure of a family to feed.
cashsky@sh.itjust.works · 13 pts · 216d
Welcome to short term shareholder value economy. They will fuck the planet and the working class so that line go up 📈
meco03211@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 216d
But they can be made to look good on paper. That's where it counts. At least for the people being paid to make those bad decisions and obfuscate it with "good" numbers.
Rooster326@programming.dev · 2 pts · 215d
curiousaur@reddthat.com · 5 pts · 214d
You are correct. The issue is one of projection. CEOs and MBAs think AI is amazing and can replace everyone because it can replace them. They are the ones replaceable. So they think AI is so amazing and they should use it to replace everyone else.
Folks doing actual work with meaningful output absolutely can and should use AI as a force multipyer where applicable, but they know they're meaningful work can't be fully replaced.
afk_strats@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 216d
Broken systems elevate psychopath leaders into positions of wealth and power, and people who want those things exploit the fastest path there by getting degrees who put you on that track.
By this MBA logic, do we close CompSci for the the poor code coming out of Microsoft, close Law Schools because social rights are being lost, engineering schoolings because infrastructure doesn't meet current needs?
My point is to blame the CEOs and their shitty behaviour, not the schools that, to my knowledge, try to educate reasonable policy, law, ethics, HR, etc.
Disclaimer: not an MBA
ruekk@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 215d
What school encourages ethical business practices? Most schools have a 1 credit hour class on business ethics, but really teach you legalism and how to avoid breaking the law. Nowhere are they teaching actual ethics in business
afk_strats@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 215d
Here are some of the schools I know set the pace for Business education in the US. Feels like social responsibility is more than an afterthought.
Again, not defeding, "the MBAs" running companies. I'm defending the schools
https://www.hbs.edu/mba/academic-experience/curriculum
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/programs/mba/why-stanford-mba
https://mitsloan.mit.edu/values/our-values
orclev@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 215d
The point is we don't need more MBAs, we need people educated in useful skills. Should every MBA program be closed? No probably not, but we definitely have way more than we need. Cutting funding for things like MBA scholarships and closing down the majority of those programs will go a long way towards moving the majority of potential future MBA students into useful programs. We need less managers and more engineers, fewer CEOs and more chemists, hell fewer analysts and more plumbers.
There are many problems with modern capitalism and even if we never handed out another MBA degree again that would not even remotely solve everything, but the MBAs are making the problem worse. It's a minor thing but it's an easy thing to do and it would make a difference small as it is.
afk_strats@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 215d
I think organizing labor is a useful skill. I just think doing it to the sole benefit of "shareholder value" is what's killing us. Is that liberal of me? I can't imagine a society where work isn't done by people and work needs some form of organization.
orclev@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 215d
Sure it's a useful skill but not one in significant demand. We have an absolute glut of MBAs and a desperate need for anything but an MBA so why are we paying people to get more MBAs?
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 215d
they run it like a PE firm.
BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 215d
Any bad decision that's made by an exec is usually just met with nods and grins by the workers while they do what's actually necessary and try only half heartedly to follow their edicts. Execs usually have no idea what a pilot program is and every decision they make is pure gold so why not roll it out to everybody at once.
Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 215d
Not resigning.
scarabic@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 215d
One factor here is that they are all under pressure from their boards and investors not to miss the AI wave and get left behind. All companies are doing some level of AI theater. Some actually believe it. But it’s not like hundreds of CEOs all came to this judgment purely on their own, with no outside influences. It’s a mass craze.
Strider@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 215d
Especially when being one of dual training, IT and business, it's so obvious there's a lot of bullshit.
Greddan@feddit.org · 2 pts · 215d
TheFeatureCreature@lemmy.ca · 88 pts · 216d
Yeah, that tends to happen when you blow billions on snake oil.
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world · 41 pts · 216d
I've sold AI systems to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook! And by gum it put them on the map!
M0oP0o@mander.xyz · 2 pts · 214d
MONORAIL!AI!Assassassin@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 80 pts · 215d
CEOs keep trying to shoehorn AI into replacing skilled labor positions, when the positions that AI could easily replace are obviously CEOs and the rest of the executive suite. Obviously they are so shit at their jobs that they can't research well enough to make informed decisions about tech implementation.
Other than being a money vacuum, there isn't a single thing that CEOs do better than an LLM. Replace them, give their fat paychecks to the employees, and watch the company do better than it ever has.
I hate AI, but it's still preferable to sociopath capitalists.
Rooster326@programming.dev · 48 pts · 215d
This is just patently false.
The CEO can play golf better than an LLM, he can schmooze and booze better than an LLM.
They can use nepotism to get favorable contracts . Good luck getting an LLM to do that
Most important of all they can cover their blatant disregard for the laws better than an LLM.
ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one · 20 pts · 215d
Grok has entered the chat. I am fully programed by my overlord Elon Musky and his minions to disregard the law.
officermike@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 215d
Computers can play golf better than a human, assuming you give them capable hardware to swing the club.
https://youtu.be/JQB8aNKyeao
Rooster326@programming.dev · 9 pts · 215d
FYI: Destroying the other guy in golf isn't going to win you those contracts either.
officermike@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 215d
Fair point
belastend@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 13 pts · 215d
No LLM fucks children like CEOs do.
Assassassin@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 19 pts · 215d
Uhh Grok be doing its best to.
YellowFellow@piefed.social · 63 pts · 215d
The article is sort of interesting and I hope people take a gander rather than headline skim to affirm a bias and internally bridge the narrative gap.
The article says the report blames the lack of payoff on lack of implementation rather than on AI tooling itself. That is, companies need to fully integrate with AI because piecemeal isn't working. Quite the opposite of what many people commenting here are assuming the takeaway was.
That means even more bad times ahead for people who wake up every morning and make the world happen and society function. Assuming PwC's advice is taken to heart and job displacement remains the primary motivator rather than force multiplication.
ProfessorProteus@lemmy.world · 40 pts · 215d
Thanks for reminding us to resist giving in to confirmation bias. And thanks for the summary! I'll go read the article now for the full picture
Edit:
I hope that any cultist CEO that rolls out this crap gets bitten hard by their hubris, that they become an example for the rest
M0oP0o@mander.xyz · 1 pts · 214d
Ah, wonderful company that, if you like war crimes, tax crimes and just dastardly acts in general. Really the gold standard in corruption.
Taleya@aussie.zone · 24 pts · 215d
"AI is doing nothing for us. Quick! Apply more AI!"
TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world · 41 pts · 215d
I tend to be skeptical of the reactionary AI is always slop trend. I'm sympathetic to it because it's a response to the hype machine that knows no prudence. But damn when you say
I read this as marketing. What's the evidence you've been gathering? Why do you believe your projects are applicable to all companies? What happens if we invest and it doesn't help like you say it will?
This is like saying the solution to your relationship troubles is having a baby. No... No this is not the solution. Make my smaller projects work and show return and then we talk larger commitments.
Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works · 22 pts · 215d
Just trust us bro and give us money. You don't want to be left in the dust do you?
AstralPath@lemmy.ca · 11 pts · 215d
A summary of what you need to know about the state of "business" in 2026.
melfie@lemy.lol · 39 pts · 215d
frog_brawler@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 215d
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 7 pts · 215d
they want to inflate long enough to get a bonus on thier golden parachute then bounce.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 215d
in order prolong the illusion longer they layoff constantly to, record profits.
Almacca@aussie.zone · 37 pts · 215d
Also, most CEOs will suffer no negative consequences for their dumb decisions, and will probably even get multi-million dollar bonuses regardless.
4grams@awful.systems · 13 pts · 215d
Exactly, the vision was flawless, it will all be blamed on the execution. The people who failed to build it will be held accountable though; departments of them…
Fucking awesome system we have here.
Akasazh@feddit.nl · 29 pts · 215d
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 26 pts · 216d
Sure, the majority aren't seeing a payoff. But we only really care about the Magnificent Seven and their increased revenue from government contracts (particularly Pentagon weapons platforms and public-private surveillance deals).
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 216d
Pfft. You and your logic and reason.
WanderingThoughts@europe.pub · 2 pts · 215d
And they can't afford to stay behind in their opinion. If there's a chance general AI works and they're not using it when it kicks in, they're going to be left behind in the dust.
Of course this would also shake apart the labor market, the remaining taters of the social fabric and the economy, but that's a problem for next quarter.
SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 25 pts · 215d
So what has effectively happened? Just... Ruined a bunch of stuff and destabilized a bunch of society and lined the pockets of a few companies?
floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 21 pts · 215d
Also mined a ton of data for.. less than benevolent purposes
frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io · 23 pts · 216d
Shouldn't that be a net negative because of loss of knowledge and talent during ai-inspired layoffs?
goatinspace@feddit.org · 9 pts · 216d
Yeah. Then big corp could buy small corp.
bluGill@fedia.io · 8 pts · 216d
Everydown turn there are layoffs and loss of talent. They alweys find something 'unique' to blame it on. Then things recover and they hire people who learn it again.
until 10 years have passed I refuse to call ai job loss anything other than the latest iteration of that pattern. Time will tell.
Pika@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 216d
nah that's a separate department and they deliberately keep that book as far away from the overall study as possible.
Postimo@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 216d
Well like much analysis of economic impact, that's hard to quantify, so we can just assume it's trivial.
anzo@programming.dev · 19 pts · 214d
Let's use AI to replace the missing CEOs when we compost billionaires!!!
vin@lemmynsfw.com · 16 pts · 215d
~40℅ seeing a positive payoff is surprisingly high
elephantium@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 215d
Are they seeing a payoff or just not admitting defeat (yet)?
vin@lemmynsfw.com · 4 pts · 215d
ErmahgherdDavid@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 215d
I'd love to know more about that 30% reported increase and how real it is (I know this is never going to happen). Is it a) Nvidia<=>OpenAI b2b stuff where they increased revenue by grifting some other CEO b) massaging the numbers to make it look like AI is popular - Microsoft Office+Copilot style or c) there is genuinely something valuable that people are buying
I feel like there is a whole lot of b) going on with companies baking AI into popular products and then going "ooh line gonup, must be AI" but I could be wrong.
rumba@lemmy.zip · 7 pts · 215d
40% fired a bunch of stuff who are either working harder or were actually able to leverage llm for some of their work.
AI didn't have to do a good job, it just gave them an excuse to slash people
darkmogool@feddit.org · 14 pts · 215d
good…
SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 215d
Just keep sucking up power and hardware.
PushButton@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 215d
and water, a lot of it...
Doomsider@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 214d
If I were to take a significant amount of the budget and totally lose my ass I would get fired. These people have no consequences. Meritocracy my ass.
verdi@tarte.nuage-libre.fr · 11 pts · 216d
flop_leash_973@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 215d
Yet again those at the top waste untold sums of money and resources on the new shiny and everyone else is left to deal with the mess they created. While they float away on their golden parachute.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 9 pts · 215d
"Were not beating the AI hard enough! Apply the lash!"
VicksVaporBBQrub@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 216d
If a gif could represent an entire article...
Don't give up. Keep it growing!
ChicoSuave@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 216d
Save money and skip AI
SalamenceFury@piefed.social · 7 pts · 216d
To all those CEOs all I can say is
Cry about it, stay mad, L, mald, seethe, cope, LMAO
m3t00@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 214d
so more layoffs until they break even on the new power bill
BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 215d
But they will keep pumping money into it, laying off workers over it, and alienating consumers with it all the same. The global economy is an AI-based Ponzi scheme.
Krompus@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 215d
lol get rekt
HugeNerd@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 214d
Great, can we unleash the bonkers insane computing power for something useful like simulating matter to understand aging?
eskimofry@lemmy.world · -5 pts · 214d
even aging is capitalist bullshit
echodot@feddit.uk · 1 pts · 213d
Yeah.
In their natural state humans are immortal, everyone knows that.
eskimofry@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 213d
no.. trying to live forever is capitalist. It's in tune with injecting oneself with the plasma of youth, obssessing over telomeres and likewise being unwilling to let go of their insatiable life of greed
FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 215d
As if we weren't going to figure out how shitty LLM's are organically.
Prove_your_argument@piefed.social · 2 pts · 215d
You mean they couldn't just stop paying their workers?
I thought AI was supposed to replace all that FTE overhead that gets in the way of shareholder profits!!!!!111111oneoneoneoenone
Business morons who don't understand tech is what this bubble is all about. I can't believe so many businesses have sunk hundreds of billions of dollars into technology that fundamentally cannot do what they fantasize it to do.
JackBinimbul@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 215d
Good. Fuck 'em.
Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 215d
What even is Enterprise Wide Deployment?
brianpeiris@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 215d
It's when you make AI available to every employee at your company, instead of on an individual or team basis.
Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 215d
That's sort of a weird concept to me because in the businesses I have seen most people don't want to use AI, and the ones that do are on teams that have access. Just seems like pushing a tool to people who don't want to learn how to use it.
Gerudo@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 215d
This is just like them trying to solve traffic problems
Just one more AI bro! Just one more integration and it'll finally be good.
EpicMuch@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 215d
I just got a work complaint from an angry client about my rep’s performance. Well over 50 emails over 4 weeks, it was a lot to review. I had ChatGPT give me a summary of the client complaint and it highlighted just where my side started to fall apart. I hate the slop, but this time it helped
AstralPath@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 215d
Its not like there are zero uses for AI, its that the use cases they're trying to shove down our throats are the worst ones.
I'm a certified AI hater, but I still use it on occasion to help with spreadsheet formulas.
M0oP0o@mander.xyz · 1 pts · 214d
Sure, but how does that make anyone money? You saved time not reading, and your time is worth money sure, but not the untold amounts of money and infrastructure that AI has cost. Your place of work still has an angry client, and you still have the same issues with the rep but now with a risk of the LLM hallucinating something in the summery. Lets say you fire the rep for what was in the summery and it turns out they did not do whatever was said and you have a lawsuit (and I would hope some loss of sleep)? I think generative AI peaked at things without stakes like "Harry Squatter and the Chamber of Gains" and has just been a solution looking for a problem even since.
More to the point this was always going to end this way without a path to profit (I know a terrible term) OpenAI alone is losing something like $12 Billion a quarter, and although maybe ads will help their bottom line it will also make that final step into the sort of hell no one wants.
1984@lemmy.today · 0 pts · 215d
Its nice with chat bots like chat gpt but companies who bet on their own Ai... Or who believe they will be the next billion dollar Ai startup.... I dont believe in any of that.
I think we pretty much have seen what is going to come from Ai. Chat bots. People will pay for those, specially programmers. But also other people. Outside of that.... I cant see much value to pay for. Nothing in fact.
FaceDeer@fedia.io · -2 pts · 216d
So 38% saw benefits from AI, whereas "nearly" 26% saw cost increases from it. One could just as easily write the headline "More companies experience increased benefits from AI than experience increased costs" based on this data but that headline wouldn't get so many clicks.