Fuck AI

Other than the CNC stuff, did anyone think AI would boost productivity? "Can it draw me a picture? Sure, better than a genius. Can it mix me a drink? Sure! But you have to buy a shitload of robotic hardware first. Don't worry though we won't charge you that much for the privilege of using our version of the software."

I'm a pretty staunch skeptic about AIs utility - I think the executive class bought into the hype and were seduced by the prospect of big waves of delicious redundancies with the attendant stock boosts, without ever actually bothering to find out if it works.

That said the article refers to that MIT study that is quite dated, and (like many) somewhat mis-characterize its findings.

For anyone who's tried to solve linguistic processing tasks with traditional methods (or even tried to write a text adventure!), it's clear there's huge potential of LLMs for /something/, but the idea that there's a way to pay for the operating costs and absurd levels of investment that has already happened is laughable.

Honestly I’ve been using AI for coding like copilot and I’ll ask ChatGPT for things etc… I always felt like I was having a major productivity boost - and sometimes I do! But I swear lately models have just been getting worse and producing incorrect results and just being slow. Either I’m expecting more of them or the are really getting worse

Shit straight up lies and is wrong every time I've used it.

Solow Paradox

The main difference is that PCs actually worked as advertised, back in the day and the reason for this productivity dent wasn't a false promise from the start. Before AI the main use of computers was of a deterministic nature, meaning you get a directly reproducible outcome depending on the input. AIs (especially: LLMs) are probabilistic in nature, the output cannot be guaranteed to be correct, and it turns out just bolting on guardrails on top of the system is a band-aid. In practice, instead of getting a general-purpose intelligent machine which is capable of making autonomous decisions, you get a word predictor with an unlimited amount of possible failure modes.

I love that studies have shown that a 4 day work week boosts productivity AND salvages some of the living in the work life balance, but rich people went with AI because it doesn't boost productivity AND it consumes exorbitant amounts of water.

My boss recently specifically requested I create a chart using AI, it took me approximately 10 times as long as it would have in excel, in no small part because I couldn't convince it it hadn't added the range values to the y-axis.

There may come a point where employers realize that AI isn’t working out, Gownder said. Some bosses who fired workers in favor of AI agents have already eaten crow and rehired their human grunts. But “AI” may simply be a way of papering over other forms of cost-cutting.

“Outsourcing is a very popular one,” he told The Register. “They’re firing people because of AI, and then three weeks later they hire a team in India because the labor is so much cheaper.”

I'm willing to bet those outsourced teams in India are just vibe coding too.

TBH boosting productivity was always a BS excuse. AI is meant to eventually replace human workers, but it's also failing to do that.

That said, Forrester’s research does predict that AI and other automation tech, like physical robots, will see a hefty six percent of jobs replaced by 2030, amounting to some 10.4 million roles.

It's unclear from context who Forrester is or what they studied. But I'd be interested to learn if this supports that AI output replaces the 6 %, or if the economy will contract 6 %.

My cynical guess would be that the study is more based on current employment trends, rather than actual economic viability. Meaning the 6% will be the 2030 size of the bubble of tech bros still trying to find a product-market fit at the expense of VC money.

If anyone manages to figure out what that study is, I'd welcome a link or doi.