The only winning move is not to play

Post by doug_durham » Wed, Dec 03, 2025, 11:50 PM UTC

add-sub-mul-div wrote: post #6

doug_durham wrote: post #2

Isn't it "The only winning move is to do good work"? If non-AI aided work is superior then it should win out in the long run because companies that do that type of research will be able to make superior decisions and thus be rewarded in the market. The argument isn't really AI versus non-AI, it's quality work versus shoddy work. It is right to lose patience with people who submit shoddy work whatever the source.

Denying that slop general labor won't thrive in the market due to its cheapness is like denying that fast food and other cheap garbage food has thrived.

Post by satisfice » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 12:10 AM UTC

doug_durham wrote: post #11

add-sub-mul-div wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Denying that slop general labor won't thrive in the market due to its cheapness is like denying that fast food and other cheap garbage food has thrived.

Then the market has spoken. Fast food fills a niche. I don't think you can qualitatively say that humanity would be happier if everyone paid more for food that was painstakingly created by hand. I know I can't. If poor marketing research is sufficient then the market has spoken.

Post by tharkun__ » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 1:12 AM UTC

venturecruelty wrote: post #14

doug_durham wrote: post #2

Isn't it "The only winning move is to do good work"? If non-AI aided work is superior then it should win out in the long run because companies that do that type of research will be able to make superior decisions and thus be rewarded in the market. The argument isn't really AI versus non-AI, it's quality work versus shoddy work. It is right to lose patience with people who submit shoddy work whatever the source.

Browse the web with your ad blocker off and then tell me to my face that quality work always wins out over shoddy work.

Post by mattnewton » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 3:06 AM UTC

doug_durham wrote: post #9

mattnewton wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If management can measure it. But in practice, the problem of course is the extra marketing of your good work against the marketing of all the ai firms trying to sell to your boss. Many firms are unable to accurately measure the quality of research work and so they will be duped by the alternative marketing. The market can correct for this on a long enough time horizon if a competitor takes the opposite bet on whethe…

That seems problematic. It sounds like this is a long time horizon issue. An experienced researcher should be able to surface to management their concerns about the quality of research. Why is the research wrong?

Post by R_D_Olivaw » Thu, Dec 04, 2025, 3:17 AM UTC

jarjoura wrote: post #16

kromem wrote: post #4

Seems very strawmanned. There's currently a bit of an 80/20 rule with AI where it does great automating 80% of an overlapping problem domain and chokes on it 20% of the time. The idea of someone giving 100% of their work to Claude as in the examples is dumb. But so is someone doing 100% of the busywork themselves. Don't waste your own time and your client's money for the sake of some nonsense purity ideal. Learn to t…

Anecdotally, the common theme I'm starting to hear more often now is that people who use “AI” at work despise it when it replaces humans outright, but love it when it saves them from mundane, repetitive crap that they have to do. These companies are not selling the world on a vision where LLMs are a companion tool, instead, they are selling the world on some idea that this is the new AI coworker. That 80/20 rule you'…