It feels like we are just playing a new meta… “look how much we are using AI for everything! Omg it’s amazing!”
Meanwhile, I’m dying to work on any customer problem. 😆 is it just me or are we in crazy town?
8 replies (most recent on top)
@bd Amen to that, they just see something shiny and how to hype it too much.
This is a good thread, like others, I do use AI almost every day. I find it fascinating, but I don't see how this is a real replacement for us yet. It's definitely gotten better, but still a lot of slop.
I feel like reading a real book and touching paper now, along with touching grass. Maybe this ultimate pinnacle of technology gets us back in touch with analog, until we find the right balance.
Anyone who actually uses AI on a day to day basis - knows it won't replace most jobs.
AI can't tell time (when given a picture of a clock), can't reliably count (past 10), can't follow a story line, gets very confused when trying to code anything longer than a small code snippet, regularly deletes databases/emails/important production segments if you give it enough lee-way, and is generally wrong about 30-50% of the time (because it only gives you the most "probable" answer, not necessarily the right one. It also got it's training data from the internet... which... is full of junk).
If you think it's going to get better - check out how AI has run up against the laws of physics, has no more data to train on, and generally can't improve because it has the memory (context window) of a gold fish.
Does AI streamline data processing? Sure. Does it answer tier 1 support questions well, sure. Can it make coding slightly faster? Maybe - if you don't use it as a crutch and actually know what you're coding.
Will it replace all humans? No.
Even my 62 year old monther knows AI generates slop and makes fun of it.
You know a tech is next to the end of it's hype cycle when 62 year old ladies start using and making fun of it.
two things here:
(1) Adding AI type features from a chat interface (regardless what you call it) - every Cloud/SaaS company is doing. CISCO cannot afford not to. However, if ELT is thinking like CISCO can come up features to wow people - they are very likely delusional. The result likely to be: OK, you did too and how about integrating with my others. I just need my data you kept. I think this is what customers are going to ask.
(2) Pushing engineering to use AI as their day to day development/sustaining practice. This is the KPI CISCO also must do to show to investor. Company will use this angle to justify the efficiency gain to offset - hiring freeze, reducing staff, reducing opex, and quicker turn-around. From a bottom level staff, hard for me to tell but company like CISCO has many fats all over the place. Many of their services can be replaced with AIs or actually not needed. The problem is that CISCO is not able to find (or not willing to) those and optimize. In stead, they are keeping squeeze the current teams that are actually support revenue products.
Leadership has no idea what to use AI for - so they are depending upon engineers to figure it out for them. Leadership has one thing in their bullseye with AI: reduce cost by automating roles with AI. Don't give into it, don't automate your role. Don't give them what they want.
@b7 there are not enough great posts on this site but this is one of them. Good stuff.
The push for AI isn't organic or authentic. It's the same pattern with ESG from the last decade. Every public company's leaders are now strongly financially incentivized to push AI - because the big four companies who are the majority shareholder of most every large public company (Vanguard, Black Rock, State Street, Schwab) also have significant investment in AI companies and are leveraging both for gains. Black Rock is a direct investor in Athropic/Claude. It's a fairly basic investment strategy to use complimentary businesses in this way.
Couple that with the usual hype cycle of new technology, and I think it clearly explains corporations' unhealthy behaviour toward AI.
It also means the global AI obsession isn't going away anytime soon - until the Big Four find their next thing.
One key difference though with ESG vs AI: the current and potential future job losses being attributed to AI is front & center in peoples' minds, which is a significant barrier to adoption, and the recent rehiring (from prior AI-related cuts) in other companies suggests the AI fad might be shorter lived than ESG. ESG (including DEI) did carry potential job losses, but with AI, job loss potential is significantly larger scale because no demographic is protected.
It's Not just you. 100% this.