91–100 of 162 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love how confidently you say this, with no evidence provided (and I doubt you have any.) Just a pristine comment section yap.
If there was a positive return on token spend they wouldn’t be capping it now would they?
Having a speed limit does not imply the utility of driving is zero.
"The leaderboard, which ranked employees and teams by token consumption, inadvertently incentivized usage volume over productive output." Who could possibly have predicted that happening?
A past employer thought it was a good idea to put up a leaderboard of who sent the most Slack messages. They celebrated the people at the top for being so active. Predictably, everyone started talking in Slack like their jobs depended on it. Everyone was responding to everything. Instead of writing out a complete message and pressing enter, they'd send each fragment of the sentence as a new line. The Slack leaderboar…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love how confidently you say this, with no evidence provided (and I doubt you have any.) Just a pristine comment section yap.
If there was a positive return on token spend they wouldn’t be capping it now would they?
"The leaderboard, which ranked employees and teams by token consumption, inadvertently incentivized usage volume over productive output." Who could possibly have predicted that happening?
I still don't understand how Mark Zuckerberg has any serious investors, he went on this AI tangent and has absolutely nothing to show for it, despite FB / Meta having built some key tech in the space. He needs to stop trying to do something "different" and literally try and build a serious coding agent he can sell, he could have probably had something worthwhile in that space by now. He started being drastically more…
"Meta building cloud business to sell excess AI capacity, Bloomberg News reports Meta building cloud business to sell excess AI capacity, Bloomberg News reports"
https://www.reuters.com/business/meta-sell-excess-ai-computi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The leaderboard wasn't leadership generated, it was engineer generated from internally available data. The leadership target is "impact" from ai tools.
What a wonderful scapegoat! Technically it's all "engineer created" because the managers generally don't do technical work. I bet many managers pushed their reports to increase their usage during their 1:1 meetings based on data from the leaderboard. If management had any sense that it was a bad metric, they had ample time to get ahead of it and take it down and provide appropriate guidance. Instead, predictably, the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A past employer thought it was a good idea to put up a leaderboard of who sent the most Slack messages. They celebrated the people at the top for being so active. Predictably, everyone started talking in Slack like their jobs depended on it. Everyone was responding to everything. Instead of writing out a complete message and pressing enter, they'd send each fragment of the sentence as a new line. The Slack leaderboar…
What is about silicon valley leaders not understanding basic economics or business management? These kind of cargo cult tactics would not fly in any other industry.
But yeah, it's like they've never actually met human beings...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have to realize that if you set a measure, you're actually setting a goal for your employees. There is no such thing as a meaningless metric; why else would you measure it? No amount of "this isn't used for anything" will change that. It's inherent in human nature in the 21st century to believe any and all metrics will be used against them, and therefore must be gamed. It's why you also have to set UNBELIEVABLY c…
I wonder if this should be codified as a rule of thumb, or an unofficial "law"? One perhaps we can reference easily among our peers.
And I still can't exhaust the limits on my Claude Max subscription, despite being more productive than I've ever been in terms of real work (ie, things that actually make money)