this post was submitted on 20 Jan 2026
879 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

78964 readers
3391 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] m3t00@lemmy.world 1 points 16 minutes ago

so more layoffs until they break even on the new power bill

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 2 points 39 minutes ago

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.

[–] HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Great, can we unleash the bonkers insane computing power for something useful like simulating matter to understand aging?

[–] eskimofry@lemmy.world -2 points 1 hour ago

even aging is capitalist bullshit

[–] anzo@programming.dev 14 points 8 hours ago

Let's use AI to replace the missing CEOs when we compost billionaires!!!

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 26 points 17 hours ago
[–] Almacca@aussie.zone 33 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

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 12 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

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.

[–] SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone 24 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

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 20 points 20 hours ago

Also mined a ton of data for.. less than benevolent purposes

[–] melfie@lemy.lol 38 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

The CEOs are investing in AI to put on airs for investors and inflate their company valuation, often pissing off customers and losing sales in the process. It’s evidently a worthy trade-off to make number go up.

[–] frog_brawler@lemmy.world 9 points 23 hours ago

Unfortunately, that's their only job, to make the number go up.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 7 points 1 day ago

they want to inflate long enough to get a bonus on thier golden parachute then bounce.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 3 points 20 hours ago

in order prolong the illusion longer they layoff constantly to, record profits.

[–] darkmogool@feddit.org 13 points 23 hours ago
[–] stoly@lemmy.world 261 points 1 day ago (23 children)

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.

[–] curiousaur@reddthat.com 4 points 10 hours ago

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.

[–] bagsy@lemmy.world 57 points 1 day ago (6 children)

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.

[–] angstylittlecatboy@reddthat.com 1 points 25 minutes ago

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.

[–] Opisek@piefed.blahaj.zone 25 points 1 day ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] oce@jlai.lu 3 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

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 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

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 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

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?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] thesohoriots@lemmy.world 69 points 1 day ago (2 children)

As I’ve always said, defund MBAs

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 54 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DandomRude@lemmy.world 22 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Strider@lemmy.world 2 points 20 hours ago

Especially when being one of dual training, IT and business, it's so obvious there's a lot of bullshit.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

What other poor decisions are they making all the time?

See also: investment in Theranos.

These people are so easy to fucking scam with buzzwords and the right "look."

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world 12 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Just keep sucking up power and hardware.

[–] PushButton@lemmy.world 6 points 21 hours ago

and water, a lot of it...

[–] YellowFellow@piefed.social 62 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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 39 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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:

Is PwC advising clients not to worry if an AI pilot project fails, and push ahead with a large-scale deployment anyway?

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

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 23 points 1 day ago

"AI is doing nothing for us. Quick! Apply more AI!"

[–] TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 41 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 22 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Just trust us bro and give us money. You don't want to be left in the dust do you?

[–] AstralPath@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 day ago

A summary of what you need to know about the state of "business" in 2026.

[–] Assassassin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 79 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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 46 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

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 19 points 1 day ago

Most important of all they can cover their blatant disregard for the laws better than an LLM.

Grok has entered the chat. I am fully programed by my overlord Elon Musky and his minions to disregard the law.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] belastend@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No LLM fucks children like CEOs do.

[–] Assassassin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 1 day ago

Uhh Grok be doing its best to.

[–] TheFeatureCreature@lemmy.ca 88 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah, that tends to happen when you blow billions on snake oil.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 41 points 1 day ago

I've sold AI systems to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook! And by gum it put them on the map!

[–] vin@lemmynsfw.com 15 points 1 day ago (2 children)

~40℅ seeing a positive payoff is surprisingly high

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 6 points 20 hours ago

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

[–] elephantium@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Are they seeing a payoff or just not admitting defeat (yet)?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 9 points 1 day ago

"Were not beating the AI hard enough! Apply the lash!"

load more comments
view more: next ›