How stupid do you have to be to believe that only 8% of companies have seen failed AI projects? We can’t manage this consistently with CRUD apps and people think that this number isn’t laughable? Some companies have seen benefits during the LLM craze, but not 92% of them. 34% of companies report that generative AI specifically has been assisting with strategic decision making? What the actual fuck are you talking about?
…
I don’t believe you. No one with a brain believes you, and if your board believes what you just wrote on the survey then they should fire you.
I don’t know how much stock to put in this author. They can’t even read the chart that they shared. They saw that 8% didn’t get use from gen ai and so assumed that 92% did. There are also 7% that haven’t tried using it yet. Ironically, pretty much any LLM with vision would have done a better job of comprehending the chart than this author did.
TLDR; AI-Bad, I’m smart.
Why is this on here?
After reading that entire post, I wish I had used AI to summarize it.
I am not in the equally unserious camp that generative AI does not have the potential to drastically change the world. It clearly does. When I saw the early demos of GPT-2, while I was still at university, I was half-convinced that they were faked somehow. I remember being wrong about that, and that is why I’m no longer as confident that I know what’s going on.
This pull quote feels like it’s antithetical to their entire argument and makes me feel like all they’re doing is whinging about the fact that people who don’t know what they’re talking about have loud voices. Which has always been true and has little to do with AI.
Yeah, this paper is time wasted. It is hilarious that they think that 3 years is a long time as a data scientists and this somehow gives them such wisdom. Then, they can’t even accurately extract the data from the chart that they posted in the article. On top of all this, like you pointed out, they can’t even keep a clear narrative, and they blatantly contradict themself on their main point. They want to pile drive people who come to the same conclusion as themself. What a strange take.
It’s consistently pretty good for writing items with low technical importance and minimal need for accuracy.
I’ll never write a job description myself again and my need for getting with communications for mass correspondence is almost gone.
Good for writing things nobody will read and reading things nobody wrote.
Honestly, I use it because it does a better job than who we usually use, the items it adds to the Job descriptions usually actually exist.
The Author’s Frustration with the Overhyped Use of AI in Businesses
• The author, a former data scientist, expresses frustration with the excessive hype surrounding AI and its implementation in businesses.
• They argue that most companies lack the expertise and infrastructure to effectively utilize AI and should focus on addressing fundamental issues like testing database backups and developing basic applications.
• The author criticizes the lack of genuine understanding and competence among many individuals promoting AI initiatives, leading to a culture of grifters and incompetents.
• They emphasize the importance of solving basic operational and cultural problems before attempting to implement complex technologies like AI.
• The author warns against the盲adoption of AI without a clear understanding of its benefits and feasibility, likening it to a recipe for disaster.
https://ludic.mataroa.blog/blog/i-will-fucking-piledrive-you-if-you-mention-ai-again/
Yes i’m fully aware of the irony that i used AI for this summary
