jj4211

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.

Eh, it could've been but on the other hand, the design is plausible. Stupid, but plausible.

Basically a space craft lander themed as a car.

Note that even by Tesla standards, they said no one could even ask for that car and that car would never be street legal. They did send have waving around whether the limited mid tier car would be street legal by saying it was contingent on your local regulations for thrusters on cars, which is a long way to say it wont be street legal either.

Even though they say the lowest end will be street legal, that active down force system says otherwise.

But a promised production date in 2 years in Tesla time means we went be seeing it for a long time, if ever.

Note that even the lowest even described model (50k just to reserve a spot for unspecified price and based on Tesla historically, unknown delivery date) there are issues.

They claim the active down force fan will be on that, but I hear that even on tracks they frequently aren't allowed. It's not likely to be a street legal thing, given what happens with road debris in such a scenario.

Oh I think it is shit, especially reading that 250k and the result was still 20% off of target in a scenario that should, in theory, be right in GenAI's wheelhouse.

Btw the decomp I was referencing was of the original modern warfare 2 from 2009.

What they have so far argued is that it isn't infringement until an operator asks for output that infringes, and then it is the operators fault. I hate that argument, but so far they sidestep the dicey issue by putting the burden on the operator.

The rogue agent thing is bullshit, but we have shitty criminal enforcement and complicit would-be plaintiffs rather than a lack of law.

They did for example rule against that one company ripping off anothers legal material despite the "but AI" defense. The court didn't care one way or the other about the process, they just cared that the output was obviously infringement. AI or no AI.

Based on the high schoolers my kids associate with and how they have broadly ditched the idea of software development as a viable career to try for.

Also our internship program dropped like 90% in applicants this year compared to last. Most years we do interviews to pick the ones that get slots, this time we just took them all and many groups just didn't get their interns.

I think to the extent AI works, it strongly steers people away from foss collaboration. Why collaborate if the AI can just generate a bespoke solution? If the AI output doesn't work, then other people aren't going to be excited to try to help you make it work among a sea of other broken code.

Maybe post bubble pop. If AI falls to work as well as hoped, a move back to the former status quo. If it does work out well enough, maybe sofware developer goes from six figure to a boring middle class job that doesn't attract so many comers.

To be fair, the slop users are relentless. Trying to even decide when to say yes to becomes a maddening chore if your community is popular and attract tons of random people excited about the novelty of being able to "contribute".

As in other cases, AI is at its worst when you have to deal with other people's output. So closed source can have a reasonably happy time because everyone that isn't on the same page is within slapping distance. But open communities and projects... Oof...

Note this theory of "if AI can clone/decompile, then it is fair game" is a pretty baseless "legal theory". People are stitching together incomplete understandings of cases. It is kind of like all those "sovereign citizen" legal theories where people think they have the magical legal recipe only to get slapped hard when they have to try to reconcile that with a real court.

I will say that a whole upcoming generation is pretty much noping away from entering this industry. Can't blame them, as at least for a large chunk of their early earning years, companies will not be hiring them.

I've seen lots of deeply AI fanatic behavior where they are entirely oblivious to how obnoxious other people are finding their output.

This case seems like they did some reflection and internalized the situation, which is nice to see. Most decent folks step back when they realize they are actively shitting on the work of people they respect. Hence AI slop being relatively more popular among sociopathic folks.

Note there is a reasonable difference between AI use and slop, but the "lazy didn't give a shit" nature of AI slopists means they can produce way more volume than the more quality users.

It's actually a lot tougher to iron out bugs that GenAI can't sort out for itself than I usually see with human code. Trying to fix a bug the vibe coder couldn't get the AI to squash is always a maddening nightmare...