nightsky

Amazon publishes Generative AI Adoption Index and the results are something! And by "something" I mean "annoying".

I don't know how seriously I should take the numbers, because it's Amazon after all and they want to make money with this crap, but on the other hand they surveyed "senior IT decision-makers".. and my opinion on that crowd isn't the highest either.

Highlights:

• Prioritizing spending on GenAI over spending on security. Yes, that is not going to cause problems at all. I do not see how this could go wrong.
• The junk chart about "job roles with generative AI skills as a requirement". What the fuck does that even mean, what is the skill? Do job interviews now include a section where you have to demonstrate promptfondling "skills"? (Also, the scale of the horizontal axis is wrong, but maybe no one noticed because they were so dazzled by the bars being suitcases for some reason.)
• Cherry on top: one box to the left they list "limited understanding of generative AI skilling needs" as a barrier for "generative AI training". So yeah...
• "CAIO". I hate that I just learned that.

I'm not sure I want to know, but what is the relation from beef tallow to fascism, is it related to the whole seed oil conspiracy? Or is it one of these imagined ultra manly masculine man things for maxxing the intake of meat? (I'm losing track of all the insane bullshit, there's just too much.)

The myth of the "10x programmer" has broken the brains of many people in software. They appear to think that it's all about how much code you can crank out, as fast as possible. Taking some time to think? Hah, that's just a sign of weakness, not necessary for the ultra-brained.

I don't hear artists or writers and such bragging about how many works they can pump out per week. I don't hear them gluing their hands to the pen of a graphing plotter to increase the speed of drawing. How did we end up like this in programming?

Update on my comment from yesterday: it seems I fell for satire (?). (I don't know the people involved, so no idea, but it seems plausible.)

I hate this position so much, claiming that it's because "the left" wanted "too much". That's not only morally bankrupt, it's factually wrong too. And also ignorant of historical examples. It's lazy and rotten thinking all the way through.

Oh! Wasn't aware of that podcast. Yeah, could be!

Warning: you might regret reading this screenshot of elno posting a screenshot. (cw: chatbots in sexual context)

oh noooo no no no

...but that brings me back to questions about "what does interaction with LLM chatbots do to human brains".

EDIT: as pointed out by Soyweiser below, the lower reply in the screenshot is probably satire.

Really great article, IMO the best on pivot-to-ai so far! The rest of the tech media is mostly useless on these issues, thank you so much for doing this.

If markets really rewarded the best, they would have rewarded Opera way more. (By which I mean the original Opera, up to version 12, and not the terrible chromium-based thing that has its name slapped on it today. Do not use that one, it's bad.)

Much more important for Chrome's success than "being the best" (when has that ever been important in the tech industry?), was Google's massive marketing campaign. Heck, back when Chrome was new, they even had large billboard ads for it around here, i.e. physical billboards in the real world. And "here" is a medium-sized city in Europe, not Silicon Valley or anything... I never saw any other web browser being advertised on freaking billboards.

Hope he remembers this in case some day he is in a nursing home, where all staff has been replaced with Tesla Optimus robots powered by "AI".

Yeah. Also, I'm always confused by how the AI becomes "all powerful".. like how does that happen. I feel like there's a few missing steps there.

Microsoft brags about the amount of technical debt they're creating. Either they're lying and the number is greatly exaggerated (very possible), or this will eventually destroy the company.