jj4211

Note that if I can't readily tell if a submission has had "AI assistance" or not, then I am not particularly interested in playing detective in the pursuit of purity. So in your case it's likely I wouldn't really care if it looks reasonably curated.

But I can understand having a standing policy to cite when you just don't feel like vetting what is more obviously "slop".

Though if your submission basically advertises the AI assistant in use, I'm not a fan. If it vaguely discloses, ideally with nuance, the nature of AI assistance (without promoting specific solutions), then I'd feel better.

I am a bit disappointed in, for example, an issue I just received that could have just said "need to add an explicit requirement" but instead was a needlessly long writeup with a little robot emoji and "created by claude code" at the end. Just tell me the gist and it saves me time, I don't want an AI generated dissertation on every little thing, that takes me more work than the 'unprofessional' blurb that folks want AI to massage.

This has strayed quite a bit from the assertion that there can't be enduring problems in the current crop of AI investment because it was at a high a while back.

But to continue, if you invested in the makeup of the DJIA in 1929 and left it in those companies, you would not be having a particularly good time.

If you kept refreshing the investment in the companies deemed to be the 'good' ones over time, then yes, your investment fared well, but that says nothing about the enduring value of the companies that made up the index in 1929. This is the current topic. It's also wild to be this dismissive of the Great Depression as nothing to worry about because, eventually, we decided on a new set of lines that could go up.

So "line goes up" by definition is not really an endorsement that all companies lines go up, we shift the criteria over time to make sure that we measure whatever works in that moment.

$100 of Krueger and Toll? $0

DJIA crested a new high September 3rd 1929 before stumbling 3% the next week.

If death of the market was on the horizon, they couldn't see it.

The slide being attributable to some "I told you so"s coming to pass may bode ill for the bigger "told you so"s that come due in a few months.

But the market doesn't act rationally, both going up and going down, so who knows.

It's a feedback loop.

Upper management can't tell what good work is, and thus whomever is the most shameless in talking themselves up wins, unless they royally screw up in a way that can't be missed. If you have any shred of humility or nuance about your work, you are almost certainly not management material.

I have met like 3 or 4 people that I actually had respect for in management roles, but overwhelmingly they were there solely on an overinflated sense of self importance rather than substance.

Sure, you credentialed people have a certain view, but I will wait till I hear from a social media tech bro, thank you very much.

Yeah, I still need quite a bit more money but absolutely feeling the same thing, at least when I engage in generic terms.

So far in my actual day to day job, it hasn't encroached in a unwelcome way, but I have more autonomy by being in charge of the project I work on. Pressure in the abstract has been there, but also pulled back since they decided slop-heavy usage is too expensive.

So this article is actualy why I'm allowing myself to be a little optimistic that I won't feel the crushing weight of wanting to just get out of the whole industry, if the general mindset swings toward being frugal about AI token usage.

OpenAI already explicitly postponed their IPO somehow hoping for a better climate to IPO in...

A certainly... optimistic expectation.

That's the thing that really gets me about these folks.

You slop up something for yourself and you are happy with it, ok.

But then you expect me to engage/pay for your zero-effort AI output that I could have just gotten myself direct from the same place you did? Why?

The slop poster isn't really replacing an 'ad exec', so it's about 'artist'.

A common scenario people have posted is when they GenAI up some food pictures. Given they could have snapped pictures of the food they cook with a cell phone pretty much instantly, this particularly doesn't inspire confidence in their food.

Related is if they GenAI up their menu, then it can get confusing/weird as the content sometimes doesn't quite match what the restauraunt actually does. Which makes me realize how lazy they are about accuracy.

The other case I've seen is them using image gen to put out a 'mascot' character. I suppose this is less critically on point, but compared to someone who skipped the 'mascot' gimmick altogether or someone who at least charmingly made an attempt, it's a bit of a turn-off.

Might as well just stop using AI agents that that point.

I don't work at Accenture, but at a group that had a similar journey from adoption to scaling back to only the included tokens and I would say that is precisely the idea: giving up on 'Agentic' use of AI, but still have enough for some acceleration.

From what I gather, in our group the findings were:

• Obviously, it was costing a heavy chunk of change and then even more expensive when rates were hiked
• There was no good way for them to even know what productive end the spend went toward, they know which employee expended a bunch of tokens, but no idea what they would have used it on
• Despite a crank of volume of stuff, they weren't seeing any business value of the stuff. Requests still took about the same time to fulfill, etc
• The most eager AI producers got ahead of their skis, and their stuff was useless because nothing and no one could reliably fix/tweak it after a certain point.
• All the scary 'AI will ruin IT security' that the AI companies themselves have been expressing likely didn't help either.
• Perhaps the most uncomfartable of all, they found out that however good or bad an AI project turns out to be, management can't tell the diference until it is too late. Being able to 'manage' the content has always been flawed, but the AI dials it up to eleven by 'looking' just right as a demo to someone that understands neither the customer nor the process of creating the work, but blows up in their faces in delivery. Kind of like how so many technology article writers breathlessly talked about the photoshop clone, despite many of them never having touched the relevant software, then heavy users reporting that it is actually shit, but the people writing about it have no context to know, but felt compelled to talk about it anyway. Those are management in the fields using AI.

And down 12% from April, down 19% from January, down 7% from Monday.

I can pick arbitrary dates for comparison too.

However since the currently relevant topic is what that stunt did for Tesla, this graph is more specifically on target.