this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2026
334 points (99.7% liked)

Technology

86145 readers
4620 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TachyonTele_Esq@piefed.social 162 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

an astonishing 29 percent of [execs] had no idea where the growing costs associated with AI were coming from.

The headline combined with the quote just make me laugh so much, I love it

[–] Triumph@fedia.io 97 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

This is what happens when the people in charge of everything are entirely separated from reality.

[–] jtrek@startrek.website 2 points 21 minutes ago

Ed Zitron wrote a whole thing about these people. Calls them "Business Idiots"

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 62 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

Those same idiots have been in charge of everything for decades, blindly doing whatever suited them.

They got duped and didn't have the technical competence to see it or trust their staff to negotiate it.

Every IT / Developer out there knew it was a bad idea. The C-Staff was sold by the billionaires that you will go AI or you will be left behind.

My own CEO is simultaneously telling us to use AI for as much as we can and telling us to reduce costs as much as possible.

[–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

I told my boss this:

  • Right now the AI race has a lot of similarities to the dotcom bubble. The subject is packed with risky loans based on huge debts. Those huge debts are expecting to be paid as AI becomes profitable, but AI companies are largely loosing money.
  • All those loans and infrastructure create the burden of sunk costs leading to a desperate need to succeed.
  • The people feeling that desperation are the same people who own the largest marketing, news, and social media networks in the world.
  • As a result, there’s a lot of hype around AI. A lot of “kool-aid,” and everyone wants you to drink it. If you drink the kool-aid, that means you’re also bought into the problem. You also need it to succeed, thus making their problem into your problem.

I explained to him that mature, professional use of AI is going to wind up following a similar path to data engineering. It’ll start with bullshit standards, “prompt engineers” and the like, but eventually SE disciplines are going to define who makes best use of AI. You’re going to have niche use cases for daemon AIs, local LLMs, and remote models. You’ll have stronger frameworks around session management, context management, agent permissions, …

It’s not going to be like this forever, “dump all your shit into our web upload and let the AI figure everything out in one go.” It’s going to become more fragmented, bounded, dare I say deterministic… orchestratable.

Then I told my boss, it would be better if he could frame his excitement around these future use cases… so we can skip the kool-aid stage and get right into the good stuff.

He agreed, until about a week passed. Then it was AI hype again.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 2 points 57 minutes ago

The 3rd or 4th "industry expert" tells them that things are "moving fast" and things that were impossible months ago are now reality. It's designed to make them distrust their own subject-matter experts. They thing, ohh POTV, they're just not educated and up to speed.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Yeah. Local LLM stuff is great when you want to shove a huge pile of documentation into a model trainer and make a more intelligent search. Two of my vendors have implemented it, and it's more useful than a traditional indexing search tool, though you do have to verify the results (which is not much more effort since with a search you'd have to skim the document to find the info it matched anyway).

But for general "do everything" tool, yeah no. It can't read and understand your entire database, codebase, business process, etc.

[–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

Honestly, I’ve had a rather interesting experience with AI. I was very adverse to LLM usage at first. Later I sort of figured out that I was more adverse to the energy around AI than I am AI itself.

I knew the models sucked at large tasks. Trying to get an edge on the matter though, I started asking myself, how can I get the model to perform better? I figured I could pass over the AI hate stage and get right into the AI professional stage… at least a head start.

So I began experimenting with local LLMs, LLM harnesses, and various governance tools like jai. I decided against Claude Code and Cortex because they’re provider specific — instead using OpenCode so that I can use whichever model I desire. Then I began building out a SKILL.md repository for tightly scoped tasks like change-review, security-analysis, refactor, architecture-review, grill-me, feature-design, …

I’m still thinking through some of the project needs. I want something that lets an agent work, while treating the agent as a kind of helpful adversary. You should be able to configure workloads that designate models, context, available tooling, skills, permissions, session length, inference level, acceptance criteria, and human-review stages. It would also allow for session switching, model switching, agent deliverable handoff to another agent, … not to mention, your VCS should know and respond appropriately if an agent ever pushes code. Don’t trust it by default.

These workloads should be version controllable, benchmarked, …

Anyway, a lot of that is speculative. Just where I’m at now, controlling context and skills manually, I’m already seeing much better results.

And no, I don’t have the AI do everything. I just find smarter ways to decompose “everything” into much smaller tasks that are easier to review and scrutinize.

But also, I push for local model usage in my organization. I don’t want my success to mean success for the AI companies. Fuck the AI companies.

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 2 points 41 minutes ago

Neither Claude code neither codex is actually vendor specific, they just don't tell you that you can config other providers, including local

However opencode is pretty nice too, so if you like it, use that. I personally find that opencode with GLM 5.2 or Kimi K2.7 isn't actually that great, it'll hallucinate more than Claude code or Codex with their respective first party models. I think it's the models themselves rather than opencode itself though, as when I use GPT for planning and hand it off to deepseek flash to do the actual work, it's more or less fine.

[–] TachyonTele_Esq@piefed.social 24 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

The "you'll be left behind" nonsense makes me laugh. Left behind from what exactly? Lol

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 17 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

The sales pitch is:

All your competition is going AI. They're be producing 10x the work with mouth breathing morons at the keys, while you're stuck paying millions to subject matter experts.

They're scared ot death that the tenuous hold they have on their market segment will be severed if their competition outflanks them in this, so FUD wins.

[–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 8 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

This isn't Justin industry or tech. I work in the academy. You would be shocked how many people from administrators all the way on down truly believe this. That, without any proof, this technology is going to make everybody a billion times more productive and that any graduates who don't have this is a foundational skill will surely not survive in the future workforce.

[–] TachyonTele_Esq@piefed.social 2 points 1 hour ago

"it's technology and science, it must be good!"

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 9 points 2 hours ago

Someone else can output more slop than us!

[–] CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world 5 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 50 minutes ago)

These execs were the ones we were supposed to replace with AI.