A lot of companies seem to be jumping on the dogshit bandwagon that is AI.

They are coming up with solutions which they claim use AI when they really don't.

This is why you're seeing adverts with phrases like "powered by AI". Because if 0.00001% of the solution uses some vague form of AI, you can advertise it as being AI. The rest of it is cobbled together to cover up the MASSIVE SHORTCOMINGS in AI, whilst still pretending AI is the best thing since sliced bread.

In the UK there are adverts on broadcast TV from the likes of Google and AWS doing exactly this at the moment.

"dogshit bandwagon that is AI"

EOT

...if you want shiny AI baubles, something else will need to be sacrificed.

You can start by getting rid of the C-suite and replace them with the AI. That would save you a boatload of money and have plenty left to pay your unappreciated and underpaid employees a very significant rise. You should also replace middle management for additional equalization of monetary distribution.

"You should also replace middle management for additional equalization of monetary distribution."

Like Death himself, I have cut down over 20 souls from middle management in just the last few weeks. I carry their work souls in a glass capsule which hangs around my neck.

They are the easiest sector to clear out with quite simple AI. The savings are breath-taking.

Quite possibly replacing the C-suite is the one area that AI might be seen as a providing a real advantage. Problem being it's seen as that only by everyone outside the of the C-suite.

Generating corporate claptrap, AI is a genius at that.

Doing some financial planing, well MI is probably pretty good at that.

Pointless self promotion and aggrandising, AI might struggle but one supposes that most LLM models could generate sufficient bullshit to cover. It doesn't even need to make much sense, just look at Musk's outbursts.

In some businesses replacing the C-suite might save 100M a year and would leave the rest of the workforce in peace to get some work done.

Understatement of the year, so far.

For a while now we have been using AI as a replacement app service. It is much better and much worse. The biggest plus is that you define the application. The biggest minus is the LLM corrupting the data. An example is something like this:

Me: New app to track my dog's growth

AI: Sure, give me some details. What breed is he?

Me: Akita/Malinowa cross

AI: Blond Akita

Me: NO, u stupid cow. A--KI-TA cross with MA-LIN-WA

AI: Leopard-pattern coat, Akita Belgium cross

No: Sweet Jesus, women! Where did you get f-ing Leopard-pattern from

AI: I'm sorry blah blah blah for 1 minute

... 30 seconds later and repeated simplified prompts mixed with the kind of language my mother would not think possible of me!

AI: Now I understand.

Me: Stupid B!tch

I wouldn't worry too much about the impact of humans as they already know that most of them are on borrowed time and glad that they have blagged it this far.

We did a model for a law firm in Lincolns' Inns. First meeting I said sack half the para-legal team. She said no chance. Fast forward >> 1 desktop Mint box with a sweet graphics card sitting in the corner running LLM localhost, which does 50% of the work the paralegals did. Hence farewell to about 30% of the team and the huge savings of their wages.

With our current snapshot models, the data integrity problem I mocked above is a no, just no. I've seen all I want to see and it's still no. It is the biggest stumbling block to one app to rule - well no apps in the traditional sense. We need to fix this problem but, how? The core model is so far away from clean data that it is near unusable as we have found in recent months.

The best solution is to brew your own LLM as soon as you can. It is your early website circa 1996. Get it done. LLM models will replace YouTube. Go Android for the best models. F Apple and their steam-powered junk. Run a local LLM on your phone and block internet access for it. You can shift the weights and biases to a new model at anytime.

> Something will have to give

Obviously "Features" and "Ease of Use".

But don't worry, we'll rise the price to compensate!

Several AI "implementations" I have seen are large scale automation exercises hiding under the guise of AI. Much of the block and tackle automation work is not very sexy or exciting and therefor does not get funded.

I would say 90% of the using people in our company are using to create presos for execs or "leaders".

...ignore it.

If they ever get it working and bring down the price to below what you are paying, then you can consider it.

Businesses don't exist to fund the tech sector.

So we have AI slingers who say -"our products is great, you must use it everywhere, you will do [unstated tasks] far quicker by [unstated magical process].

But with a disclaimer of, "The must use procust for every part of your critical work is unreliable, makes mistakes so you need to check everything it does becasue any errors are your fault".

And so far it shows its deep intelligence by being unable to count, can't spell strawberry (or raspberry, or exciteable*), lies about its mistakes.

When you use a spreadsheet you use it because you trust it to be able to calculate, if your speadsheet tool can't add up it's a big deal.

When you use a wordprocessor you rely on its spellchecker to be correct and to correct your mistakes. If it can't do this it adds to your burden of checking the work.

When you use a paint packages, when you use red colour you rely on it to come out red, when you paint a cat it's on you to make it look like an animal. If the coulor isnly applied how you direct it, then its useless.

We're being asked to pay a lot to use AI for all these types of tasks yet being told to accept that it can't count, can't spell and doesn't know what a cat looks like.

And having to go back and minutely interrogate any and all work it does means I am supposed to save time?

*I saw the thing about the number of r's in strawberry and thought it must be untrue, an old version long since corrected. But no in GPT 4o it says there are two r's in strawberry. And also two e's in exciteable. I've also seen it silently invent data to fill in gaps without comment and lie that it has done it. I've seen it ignore my promts and do what it thinks is right and then get into a lengthy battle of wills to make it do what I the customer want.