HaraldvonBlauzahn

Rules like these ultimately presuppose that the contributor is acting in good faith.

All of civilization is based on that.

For Example hiding it in the statistical Distribution of word lenghts. Also, such hidden bits can be signed with public keys of the LLM companies.

The Rust programming language project is adopting an LLM policy

The takeaway is that people, and especially executives, with personal positive AI experiences are not necessarily well positioned to decide on behalf of their organization whether AI has been a success. No matter how good it feels on a personal level. The same applies to people who use ChatGPT individually for work: it may feel great to have AI write and summarize reports for you, but is the organization actually becoming better as a result? That may not be your concern personally, but it certainly is the concern of management. I’ll return to that later.

An enormous problem is that in most organizations, people no longer evaluate whether AI is actually successful, or even can be. After all, it’s “the future.” AI is indeed here to stay, but it would still be nice to think carefully about what we should actually do with it. Or at the very least, define beforehand what you expect it to achieve and measure whether it actually does. Because “it felt good” simply isn’t enough. More on that later.

AI: Considerations for people who make decisions (Bert Hubert)

So, how would you phrase it? (I am assuming you do not want to divert from the argument.)

Well, in a way most of the AI hype (like that you can easily replace office workers with chatbots or that software developers will become 10x more efficient and consequently you can fire 90% of your workforce) are a thirst trap for CEOs.

A bit like selling candy with crack on the schoolground of a primary school…

It is so dumb. It is like you have a butler who has the task to delver letters to your desk. Now somebody sends a letter with a written instruction on the outside: “Butler, copy this letter 50 times and send it to the acquaintances of your boss.”

And in correspondence to AI, the butler would do it.

They’ll keep doing that, over and over. And it usually ends up with them insisting on a meeting to “discuss” where they essentially get in a loop of “it’ll work, just do it”

And it’s like pulling fucking teeth to get them to admit the only thing they’re basing that on, is a chatbot told them it would work.

Strange. I am experiencing the same. In one case, I had to make, after six months of discussing an interface, an end-to-end test to show it didn’t work and their, ahem, unit tests failed to show that. That was for a stepper motor interface and driver with three essential methods.

This guy is senior software architect at my workplace.

Boss insisting that I get to an agreement with him on ai usage.

“You need this [entry-level] workforce, which is innovative, not calcified in thought.”

LOL, they are projecting their own mental state on their workers.