21–30 of 165 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does it make sense to trade one group of labor (human) who are generally loosely connected, having little collective power for another (AI)? What you're really doing isn't making work more "efficient", you're just outsourcing work to another party -- one who you have very little control over. A party that is very well capitalized, who is probably interested in taking more and more of your margin once they figure…
It’s the same as robots in a factory.
> while quoting an HR executive at a Fortune 100 company griping: "All of these copilots are supposed to make work more efficient with fewer people, but my business leaders are also saying they can't reduce head count yet." I'm surprised McKinsey convinced someone to say the quiet part out loud
I find it all quite strange: - AI companies of course will try and sell you that you can reduce headcount with AI - CEO's will parrot this talking point without ever talking a closer look. - Everyone lower down on the org chart minus the engineers are wondering why the change hasn't started yet. - Meanwhile engineers are ripping their hair out cause they know that AI in it's current state will likely not replace any…
I am not kidding. In any large corps, the decision makers refuse to take any risks, show no creativity, move as a flock with other orgs, and stay middle-of-the-road, boring, beige khaki. The current AIs are perfect for this.
> while quoting an HR executive at a Fortune 100 company griping: "All of these copilots are supposed to make work more efficient with fewer people, but my business leaders are also saying they can't reduce head count yet." I'm surprised McKinsey convinced someone to say the quiet part out loud
I find it all quite strange: - AI companies of course will try and sell you that you can reduce headcount with AI - CEO's will parrot this talking point without ever talking a closer look. - Everyone lower down on the org chart minus the engineers are wondering why the change hasn't started yet. - Meanwhile engineers are ripping their hair out cause they know that AI in it's current state will likely not replace any…
No one wants to say on their resume, "I manage 5 people, but trust me, with AI, its like managing 20 people!"
Managers also don't pay people's salaries. The Tech Tools budget is a different budget than People salaries.
Also keep in mind, for any problem space, there is an unlimited number of things to do. 20 people working 20% more efficiently wont reach infinity any faster than 10 people.
I hadn't ever tried Notion before but I sort of vaguely understood it was a nice way to make some documentation and wiki type content. I had a need for something like a table that I could filter that I would normally just do in Google Sheets. So I go check out Notion and their entire site is focused on AI. Look at what this agent can do, or that. I signed up and the entire signup flow is also focused on AI. Finally I…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it all quite strange: - AI companies of course will try and sell you that you can reduce headcount with AI - CEO's will parrot this talking point without ever talking a closer look. - Everyone lower down on the org chart minus the engineers are wondering why the change hasn't started yet. - Meanwhile engineers are ripping their hair out cause they know that AI in it's current state will likely not replace any…
I am still of the conviction that "reducing employee head count" with AI should start at the top of the org chart. The current iterations of AI already talk like the C-suites, and deliver approximately same value. It would provide additional benefits, in that AIs refuse to do unethical things and generally reason acceptably well. The cost cutting would be immense! I am not kidding. In any large corps, the decision ma…
I hadn't ever tried Notion before but I sort of vaguely understood it was a nice way to make some documentation and wiki type content. I had a need for something like a table that I could filter that I would normally just do in Google Sheets. So I go check out Notion and their entire site is focused on AI. Look at what this agent can do, or that. I signed up and the entire signup flow is also focused on AI. Finally I…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it all quite strange: - AI companies of course will try and sell you that you can reduce headcount with AI - CEO's will parrot this talking point without ever talking a closer look. - Everyone lower down on the org chart minus the engineers are wondering why the change hasn't started yet. - Meanwhile engineers are ripping their hair out cause they know that AI in it's current state will likely not replace any…
I am still of the conviction that "reducing employee head count" with AI should start at the top of the org chart. The current iterations of AI already talk like the C-suites, and deliver approximately same value. It would provide additional benefits, in that AIs refuse to do unethical things and generally reason acceptably well. The cost cutting would be immense! I am not kidding. In any large corps, the decision ma…
From what I know of the firm, it looks like clients have come to the right place if they want a consultant with great experience at hiking prices without cutting costs or boosting productivity.