CEOs who think AI replaces their employees are just bad CEOs

Post by ACCount37 » Wed, Jun 10, 2026, 10:27 AM UTC

jjk166 wrote: post #88

ACCount37 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The message isn't subtle, and isn't meant to be: "we don't care how, but we expect you to stick your nose into AI tools and find some way to fit them into your workflow". Which indicates: the management believes there are productivity gains from AI use, but adoption lags due to inertia and reluctance to change existing workflows.

> Which indicates: the management believes there are productivity gains from AI use, but adoption lags due to inertia and reluctance to change existing workflows. Methinks adoption lags due to management's inability to align incentives such that productivity gains are rewarded.

Post by Qhemlomo » Wed, Jun 10, 2026, 10:57 AM UTC

koe123 wrote: post #211

hintymad wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's so much work in delivering products that will carry your brand, and then must be supported. People think otherwise with AI partly because Anthropic kept telling us that they didn't have to write code or review code any more for most of their work. Their agent swarms just comb through their github, slack and wikis to figure out what to do next, and another swarm of agents just review, test, merge, deploy, A/…

I think taking Anthropic or any company in this space at face value is naive at best though. AGI has been 6 months away for years now. Surely anyone can think this through: Anthropic knows what theyre doing with their public facing repositories, they know to make things enabled by their tech seem impressive. I would consider Bun etc. examples of this. Realistically, nobody intellectually honest really knows.

Post by seb1204 » Wed, Jun 10, 2026, 11:10 AM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #217

jcgl wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t see how that helps, unless you actually mean open source, rather than open weights like most people do. Without everything that goes into the model, including training data, these things are opaque.

Actual open source is hard without a big war chest that allows you to flagrantly steal the training data.

Post by 9cb14c1ec0 » Wed, Jun 10, 2026, 11:40 AM UTC

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #242

Quothling wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So far, LLMs seem to deliver code with "Louie Da Loan Shark"-levels of tech debt. Maybe a couple of years ago, but these days, Opus 4.8 is frankly writing better software than what I've seen over the previous decades in non-tech enterprise. These previous two months, we've replaced so much technical debt we've been dragging along for the previous 5 years as our team went from 25 to 3 people. This is in non-tech ent…

> Maybe a couple of years ago, but these days, Opus 4.8... No. Opus 4.8 still writes bad code, just like every other time AI boosters have claimed "but the newest models are really good".

Post by c-linkage » Wed, Jun 10, 2026, 11:54 AM UTC

seb1204 wrote: post #275

Spooky23 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actual open source is hard without a big war chest that allows you to flagrantly steal the training data.

Honest question, I wonder why that is? Surely we have smart humans that did not read and learn "all the books". Can AI not be trained by re-reading material multiple times to reinforce?