Companies That Tried to Save Money With AI Are Now Spending a Fortune Hiring People to Fix Its Mistakes
Technology
109
Beiträge
81
Kommentatoren
0
Aufrufe
-
Kinda like Wal-Mart trying to “save money” with self check out and now they are walking it back.
At least in my area they've decided to walk back the walk back.
They went from "Self checkouts are now only for ten items or less" to "Self checkouts are permanently closed" and now they've gone to "Self checkouts can be used for any number of items and also we added four more".
-
All the leadership who made this mistake should be fired. They are clearly incompetent
But i guess it's always labor that pays the price
The power to fire lies within the leadership themselves though...
Oh, you mean an actual fire?! I like your way of thinking. -
As a senior developer, my most productive days are genuinely when I remove a lot of code. This might seem like negative productivity to a naive beancounter, but in fact this is my peak contribution to the software and the organization. Simplifying, optimizing, identifying what code is no longer needed, removing technical debt, improving maintainability, this is what requires most of my experience and skill and contextual knowledge to do safely and correctly. AI has no ability to do this in any meaningful way, and code bases filled with mostly AI generated code are bound to become an unmaintainable nightmare (which I will eventually be paid handsomely to fix, I suspect)
That's what I suspect. ChatGPT is never wrong, and even if it doesn't know, it knows and still answers something. I guess its no different for source code: always add, never delete.
-
This post did not contain any content.
They should have just asked me. I knew that would be the result years ago. Writing has been on the screaming wall of faces while the faces also screamed it.
-
I wonder if there's a market here. I feel like a company that cleans up AI bullshit would make bank lol
You son of a bitch, I'm in!
Nah, I came here to make this comment and you already have it well in hand. It's not really any different other than the marketing spin, though. Companies have always had bad code and hired specialists to sort it out. And over half of the specialists suck, too, and so the merry-go-round spins.
-
I don’t know if it even helps with productivity that much. A lot of bosses think developers’ entire job is just churning out code when it’s actually like 50% coding and 50% listening to stakeholders, planning, collaborating with designers, etc. I mean, it’s fine for a quick Python script or whatever but that might save an experienced developer 20 minutes max.
And if you “write” me an email using Chat GPT and I just read a summary, what is the fucking point? All the nuance is lost. Specialized A.I. is great! I’m all for it combing through giant astronomy data sets or protein folding and stuff like that. But I don’t know that I’ve seen generative A.I. without a specific focus increase productivity very much.
A lot of bosses think developers’ entire job is just churning out code when it’s actually like 50% coding and 50% listening to stakeholders, planning, collaborating with designers, etc.
A lot of leadership is incompetent. In a reasonable, just, world they would not be in these decision making positions.
Verbose blogger Ed Zitron wrote about this. He called them "Business Idiots": https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-era-of-the-business-idiot/
-
Vibe coding is 5% asking for code and 95% cleaning up the code, turns out replacing people with AI is exactly the same.
Jup. But the same goes for developers that go way too fast when setting up a project or library. 2-3 months in and everything is a mess. Weird function names, all one letter vars, no inversion of control, hardcoded things etc. Good luck fixing it.
-
It's true, although the smart companies aren't laying off workers in the first place, because they're treating AI as a tool to enhance their productivity rather than a tool to replace them.
Productivity will go up, wages will remain the same, and no additional time off will be given to employees. They’ll merely be required to produce 4x as much and compensation will not increase to match.
It seems the point of all these machines and automation isn’t to make our individual lives easier and more prosperous, but instead to increase and maximize shareholder value.
-
It's technically closer to Schrodinger's truth. It goes both ways depending on "when" you look at it. Publicly traded companies are more or less expected to adopt AI as it is the next "cheap" labor... so long as it is the cheapest of any option. See the very related: slave labor and it's variants, child labor, and "outsourcing" to "less developed" countries.
The problem is they need to dance between this experimental technology and ... having a publicly "functional" company. The line demands you cut costs but also increase service. So basically overcorrection hell. Mass hirings into mass firings. Every quarter / two quarters depending on the company... until one of two things becomes true: ai works or ai no longer is the cheapest solution. I imagine that will rubberband for quite some time. (saas shit like oracle etc)
In short - I'd not expect this to be more than a brief reprieve from a rapidly drying well. Take advantage of it for now - but I'd recommend not expecting it to remain.
The line demands you cut costs but also increase service.
The line demands it go up. It doesn't care how you get there. In many cases, decreasing service while also cutting costs is the way to do it so long as line goes up.
See: enshittification
-
Same thing happened with companies that used outsourcing expecting it to be a magic bullet.
I worked in one of these companies. Within months, we went from a company I would be proud to recommend to friends to a service I would never use myself, just due to the horrendous route they took to hire overseas support.
The line of tech work I was in required about a month of training after passing the interview process, and even then you had to take a test at the end to prove you’d absorbed the material before you ever speak to a customer.
When they outsourced, they just bought a company of like 30 people in an adjacent industry and gave them a week of training. Our call queues were never worse and every customer was angry with everyone by the time they talked to someone who had training.
I don’t blame the overseas agents. I blame all the companies that treat them like cattle.
-
I hope this is true. I would like to have a job again.
jobs are for suckers, be a consultant and charge triple
-
jobs are for suckers, be a consultant and charge triple
I'm absolutely not charismatic enough to pull that off.
-
Doesn't that have more to do with Gamepass eating game studios' lunch though? And a lot less with AI? Just regular ol' dumbass management decisions.
It’s Microsoft would make most sense its mangement decisions considering recently theyve pulled all the stops out to guarantee the software cant be shittier. They even made all there software spyware now.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Ah so AI does create jobs, it’s the Zorg logic
-
This post did not contain any content.
As someone who has been a consultant/freelance dev for over 20 years now this is true. Lately I've been getting offers and contacts from places to essentially clean up the mess from LLMs/AI.
A lot of is pretty bad. It's a mess. But like I said I've been at it for awhile and I've seen this before when companies were offshoring anything and everything to India and surprise, surprise, they didn't learn anything. It's literally the exact same thing. Instead of an Indian guy that claims they know everything and will work for peanuts, it's AI pretty much stating the same shit.
I've been getting so many requests for gigs I've been hitting up random out of work devs on linkedin in my city and referring the jobs to them. I've burned through all my contacts that now I'm just reaching out to absolute strangers to get them work.
yes it's that bad (well bad for companies, it's fantastic for developers.)
-
It's true, although the smart companies aren't laying off workers in the first place, because they're treating AI as a tool to enhance their productivity rather than a tool to replace them.
Idk about engaging productivity.
If your job is just doing a lot of trivial code that just gets used once, yeah I can see it improving productivity.
If your job is more tackling the least trivial challenges and constantly needing to understand the edge cases or uncharted waters of the framework/tool/language, it’s completely useless.
This is why you get a lot of newbies loving AI and a lot of seniors saying it’s counter productive.
-
I'm absolutely not charismatic enough to pull that off.
youre in luck, i offer consultation for consultancing, now give me money
-
Ah so AI does create jobs, it’s the Zorg logic
Jean-Baptiste
Emmanuel
Zorg
-
All the leadership who made this mistake should be fired. They are clearly incompetent
But i guess it's always labor that pays the price
What’s sad is that the AI hype did inflate stock prices.
Most c suites’ job is to look out for the interests of investors.
Technically they did a good job. I hate capitalism
-
This post did not contain any content.
What these companies didn't take the time to understand is, A.I. is a tool to make employees more efficient, not to replace them. Sadly the vast majority of these companies will also fail to learn this lesson now and will get rid of A.I. systems altogether rather than use them properly.
When I write a document for my employer I use A.I. as a research and planning assistant, not as the writer. I still put in the work writing the document, I just use A.I. to simplify the tedious data gathering and organizing.
