When you can't convince, confuse is how you sum up corporate speak.
Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs
151–160 of 354 posts
Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs
#152In hypnosis terms, this is confusion induction.
Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs
#153If anyone wants a chuckle, I vibe-coded an endless supply of "synergizing paradigm" terms as a slideshow for a fake corporation. It's fun to put on in the background on a tv somewhere to see if anyone notices. https://brightpath-global-solutions.com/ Edit: repo link: https://github.com/chronick/global-business-solutions
Turn it into an endless LLM trap. The sooner tgese aystems are piinsoned, the batter humanoty will last
Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs
#154[deleted]
Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs
#155I suspect this is why formal languages exist; as a sieve to keep the hordes of fools at bay, and a system for turning bullshit into parse errors. We are undoing much of this progress by now insisting everything be expressed in natural language for a machine to translate on our behalf, like a tour guide. The natives will continue to speak amongst themselves in their mother tongue.
But if someone says something like "synergizing paradigms", isn't that essentially a parse error to any normal person? You don't need formal language (though formal languages can serve that purpose). You just need to listen like a normal human being rather than like a corporate suit, and that kind of language is just incomprehensible - a parse error. You have to work at it to make sense of that kind of language. And…
My guy: corporate sloganeering is as much cultural appropiation as ghetto speak and drug culture.
Theres no high minded difference. Its just in/out group identification.
Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs
#156This is very relevant to the LLM era.
Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but it’s not clickbait. It accurately reflects the article content, and seemingly, the discussed study’s results.
The Karl Popper in me says: Its barely useful science because its not falsifiable. Its like a horoscope, it applies to everyone. Its closer to a tautology "Its raining or its not" than a contradiction "Its raining and its not". The closer to contradiction limits the possible realities, which makes it better science. Imagine if I said "People who skip breakfast are worse at their jobs". Its so vague, its always true.
> Imagine if I said "People who skip breakfast are worse at their jobs". Its so vague, its always true.
As long as you can define some measure of "worse at their jobs", which corporations routinely do, this seems like an easy thing to falsify.
Go get employee eval scores and poll everyone on whether they eat breakfast.
Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs
#158In a discussion yesterday about a large and complex physical system that is hard to optimise further without more work for it to do (lots of excess capacity), the VP suggested we should 'consider how emergent technologies could be leveraged to decrease overhead'. It is a clever way to say, I have no ideas either, but if a better machine that hasn't been invented yet becomes available we should use that'. I say 'cleve…
Bullshit is so dangerous because it could mean something. That VP could mean, it's time to look beyond the set of mature technologies we've been considering and look at newer technologies that we would normally ignore because they come with risks and rough edges and higher cost of ownership.
So it might be a substantive decision that affects how everybody in the room will do their jobs going forward. Or it could be a random stream of words chosen because they sound impressive, which everyone will nod respectfully at and then ignore. And like an LLM, he might have made it into his current position without needing to know the difference.
Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs
#159If anyone wants a chuckle, I vibe-coded an endless supply of "synergizing paradigm" terms as a slideshow for a fake corporation. It's fun to put on in the background on a tv somewhere to see if anyone notices. https://brightpath-global-solutions.com/ Edit: repo link: https://github.com/chronick/global-business-solutions
[dead]
Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
>a sieve to keep the hordes of fools at bay Corporate speak as a signalling mechanism is only effective among the "clueless" in the Gervais model. If any CEO tried to talk 1:1 to a competent board member that way, they would lose all credibility. Once you've operated at a certain level you get it >a system for turning bullshit into parse errors. This is the (cynical version of) the framing I tend to hold about corpor…
Corporate speak as a signalling mechanism is only effective among the "clueless" in the Gervais model. If any CEO tried to talk 1:1 to a competent board member that way, they would lose all credibility. Once you've operated at a certain level you get it This also holds true for competent non-board members. I have interacted with C-level executives at fortune 100 companies, as well as smaller businesses. It is almost…
what you view as subtly manipulative is just having good social skills