Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ford AI hiccups push carmaker to rehire ‘gray beard’ inspectors

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 592 posts

Re: Ford AI hiccups push carmaker to rehire ‘gray beard’ inspectors

#241

Post by helterskelter »

tandr wrote: post #223
helterskelter wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the topic of Stellantis, I rented one recently (through no fault of my own) and when I returned it the guy asked me how it was. I told him I wouldn't drive one of those things again if they paid me, and the guy said "yeah we get that a lot, let me get you the discount". It sounded like they had a "Stellantis discount" for people who said something. Nice guy, actually.

As far as I can see on Wikipedia page or homepage for Stellantis, they do not make cars under their own name. So, which brand did you rent actually?

Jeep Wagoneer, I just remember the Stellantis logo on the infotainment boot screen. I thought it was a Stellantis Wagoneer because the Jeep logo was almost completely absent, at least in memory.

Re: Ford AI hiccups push carmaker to rehire ‘gray beard’ inspectors

#242

Post by mothballed »

shwaj wrote: post #237
mothballed wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Society is incredibly inconsistent on this point. If a CEO shit-cans 500 people who sacrificed future career prospects for the company and end up destitute, society say's that's capitalism and they need to learn to code in a month or something. If a stay at home wife gets "bored" and divorces her husband of 20 years, he commonly owes her a decade+ of alimony to "make up for the sacrifice and time to get on her feet"…

I don’t think society is a monolith. Many of those who support your proverbial alimony are also against CEOs acting with impunity.

Sure, but the interest of "society" is what judges typically claim to represent when they bang that gavil.

If you wish to change it to "the law of society" which is what "society" backs with violence, go for it.

Re: Ford AI hiccups push carmaker to rehire ‘gray beard’ inspectors

#243

Post by [deleted] »

buran77 wrote: post #233
mothballed wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Society is incredibly inconsistent on this point. If a CEO shit-cans 500 people who sacrificed future career prospects for the company and end up destitute, society say's that's capitalism and they need to learn to code in a month or something. If a stay at home wife gets "bored" and divorces her husband of 20 years, he commonly owes her a decade+ of alimony to "make up for the sacrifice and time to get on her feet"…

> As usual it's communism for the plebs and something entirely different for the capital wielding class. Bad example. Ask Bezos how much he paid his wife after the divorce.

[deleted]

Re: Ford AI hiccups push carmaker to rehire ‘gray beard’ inspectors

#244

Post by red75prime »

dgellow wrote: post #133
simianwords wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are misleading people by calling it a "hype cycle". There is no going back from this technology. It is going to encroach every part of lives more and more. What does hype even mean concretely? I think this is just a coping mechanism if you ask me.

Hype cycle doesn’t imply the technology has no value. But we should be able to talk about it as the boring, nerdy technology it is without that whole doom trolling and “AI will literally solve everything”

> the boring, nerdy technology it is

Er, what? Intricacies of a transformer pipeline might be boring and nerdy, but the results are not. BTW, I've yet to find any strong argument on why the current ML approaches are bounded below the level you find appropriate to be bored.

Re: Ford AI hiccups push carmaker to rehire ‘gray beard’ inspectors

#245

Post by nilkn »

khriss wrote: post #57

Interestingly, there were no consequences for the execs that made this 'mistake'. There seems to be almost unlimited cover for execs cargo culting on using AI as a pretext for layoffs. If it doesn't implode almost immediately, they get massive bonuses, if it blows up in their face, oh well they had the courage to 'take a bold strategic decision' In other words, they don't really have a plan, but they are happy playin…

That's because the company likely doesn't view it as a mistake. The executives did their job: they tried something the company likely considered reasonable (or even strategically necessary) and pivoted based on results. At the executive level, that's not considered a blunder. What counts as a blunder would be (1) being too cautious to try a change, then falling behind your competitors if that change turned out to be critical or successful; (2) attempting at change, seeing that it didn't work, and refusing to pivot or falling prey to the sunk cost fallacy.

Re: Ford AI hiccups push carmaker to rehire ‘gray beard’ inspectors

#246

Post by dominotw »

jm4 wrote: post #193
khriss wrote: post #57

Interestingly, there were no consequences for the execs that made this 'mistake'. There seems to be almost unlimited cover for execs cargo culting on using AI as a pretext for layoffs. If it doesn't implode almost immediately, they get massive bonuses, if it blows up in their face, oh well they had the courage to 'take a bold strategic decision' In other words, they don't really have a plan, but they are happy playin…

Generally, you don’t want to punish people for making decisions. At least I don’t. I value people who are willing to try things and I generally believe any decision made in good faith is better than no decision. My litmus test is was it a reasonable decision given the information available at the time in service of a greater goal. I can live with the consequences of that. If it turns out to be a not so great decision…

> Generally, you don’t want to punish people for making decisions.

riff-raff cogs get fired for making bad decisions all the time. also if not punished for making decisions. how do execs ever get punished because all they do is make decisions.

Re: Ford AI hiccups push carmaker to rehire ‘gray beard’ inspectors

#248

Post by ufmace »

K0balt wrote: post #52
reactordev wrote: post #10

This is going to be the norm across the board as the models have failed to live up to the hype. I do think LLMs and agents and all are great at helping you through tough problems but we aren’t there yet on getting them to do all the work while we just architect and design. Again, it’s close, and for your use cases you might be there already but for low level and big corporate lift and shifts, it’s not there yet. I ha…

Documentation driven development is your friend here. 75% of my workflow is generating documentation, at ever lower levels of abstraction, until it’s just code. The code usually comes out optimal, clean, and bug free (after passing tests) and. Suuuuuper well documented lol. It’s human in the loop over and over again tho

I tend to feel like, I start out with a rough idea of a program I want to write in my head. I find it easier to just write the code directly than to write a document with sufficient detail about how I want it to work for an LLM to actually write the right code, then have the LLM write the code. And the resulting documentation is about as likely to be useless or a burden as it is to be helpful in the future.

Re: Ford AI hiccups push carmaker to rehire ‘gray beard’ inspectors

#249

Post by toomuchtodo »

asveikau wrote: post #201
jm4 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally, you don’t want to punish people for making decisions. At least I don’t. I value people who are willing to try things and I generally believe any decision made in good faith is better than no decision. My litmus test is was it a reasonable decision given the information available at the time in service of a greater goal. I can live with the consequences of that. If it turns out to be a not so great decision…

Even from the selfish perspectives of these executives, it can be quite bad to isolate people from the consequences of bad decisions. It will prevent learning from mistakes, and lead to more bad decisions. Which I guess is getting at another thing. The failure was predictable. People shouldn't be rewarded for failing to avoid obvious predictable failures. Maintaining their status quo could also be seen as rewarding t…

If you're unwilling to fall on your sword and face material consequences for decisions that cause quantifiable harm the people who work for you or your customers, you do not belong in a leadership position imho, but that isn't where we are today. The people making these decisions will face no consequences for the harm they cause. Its likely they continue to be employed and receive generous compensation.

Workers get fired when they are wrong at much smaller scale, why not these people? They are not special, they are simply lucky and connected.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42639566 ("Pharaoh must signal, to shareholders, to a board, and to their peers. There will be no consequences for failure to adhere to this proclamation.")

Salesforce will hire no more software engineers in 2025, says Marc Benioff - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42639417 - January 2025 (390 comments)

https://www.salesforce.com/company/careers/jobs/?search=soft... (724 results, as of this comment)

Re: Ford AI hiccups push carmaker to rehire ‘gray beard’ inspectors

#250

Post by barkerja »

jm4 wrote: post #193
khriss wrote: post #57

Interestingly, there were no consequences for the execs that made this 'mistake'. There seems to be almost unlimited cover for execs cargo culting on using AI as a pretext for layoffs. If it doesn't implode almost immediately, they get massive bonuses, if it blows up in their face, oh well they had the courage to 'take a bold strategic decision' In other words, they don't really have a plan, but they are happy playin…

Generally, you don’t want to punish people for making decisions. At least I don’t. I value people who are willing to try things and I generally believe any decision made in good faith is better than no decision. My litmus test is was it a reasonable decision given the information available at the time in service of a greater goal. I can live with the consequences of that. If it turns out to be a not so great decision…

It's easy to take that stance in jest .. when it has no material impact on you. But if your life was uprooted by the decision of an executive because they made what was a "good faith" decision for the benefit of the shareholder, then I'd wager you may feel differently.
Post reply on HN