• Keener@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    150
    ·
    17 days ago

    Former shopify employee here. Tobi is scum, and surrounds himself with scum. He looks up to Elon and genuinely admires him.

    • Paradox@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      17 days ago

      Shame, because I used to actually admire how he handled layoffs. Was a far sight better (from outside looking in) than the “thanks, here’s one extra paycheck, send your laptop back at your expense please” I’d experienced

        • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          16 days ago

          Still have mine gathering dust when one american startup (went under already) laid me off 1 day before I had to be legally granted my equity shares and they had the audacity to ask me to arrange the return lmao

  • darkpanda@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    ·
    17 days ago

    Dev: “Boss, we need additional storage on the database cluster to handle the latest clients we signed up.”

    Boss: “First see if AI can do it.”

    • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 days ago

      Currently the answer would be “Have you tried compressing the data?” and “Do we really need all that data per client?”. Both of which boil down to “ask the engineers to fix it for you and then come back to me if you are a failure”

    • ramielrowe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      17 days ago

      A coworker of mine built an LLM powered FUSE filesystem as a very tongue-in-check response to the concept of letting AI do everything. It let the LLM generate responses to listing files in directories and reading contents of the files.

  • besselj@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    17 days ago

    What these CEOs don’t understand is that even an error rate as low as 1% for LLMs is unacceptable at scale. Fully automating without humans somewhere in the loop will lead to major legal liabilities down the line, esp if mistakes can’t be fixed fast.

    • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      17 days ago

      Yup. If 1% of all requests result in failures and even cause damages, you‘ll quickly lose 99% of your customers.

      • VanillaFrosty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        17 days ago

        It’s starting to look like the oligarchs are going to replace every position they can with AI everywhere so we have no choice but to deal with its shit.

    • wagesj45@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      17 days ago

      I suspect everyone is just going to be a manager from now on, managing AIs instead of people.

    • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      17 days ago

      What error rate do you think humans have? Because it sure as hell ain’t as low as 1%.

      But yeah, it is like the other person said: This gets rid of most employees but still leaves managers. And a manager dealing with an idiot who went off script versus an AI who hallucinated something is the same problem. If it is small? Just leave it. If it is big? Cancel the order.

          • ebolapie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            17 days ago

            What would happen to such a human? Do you suppose that we would try to give them every job on the planet? Or would they just get fired?

      • FourWaveforms@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        17 days ago

        Error rate for good, disciplined developers is easily below 1%. That’s what tests are for.

      • taladar@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        16 days ago

        The error rate for human employees for the kind of errors AI makes is much, much lower. Humans make mistakes that are close to the intended task and have very little chance of being completely different. AI does the latter all the time.

      • oxysis@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        17 days ago

        I mean it is also generous to the Artificial Idiot to say it only has a 1% error rate, it’s probably closer to 10% on the low end. Which humans can be far better than in terms of just directly following the assigned task but does not factor in how people can adapt and problem solve. Most minor issues real people have can be solved without much of a fuss because of that. Meanwhile the Artificial Idiot can’t even draw a full wine glass so good luck getting it to fix its own mistake on something important.

        • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          17 days ago

          Which humans can be far better than in terms of just directly following the assigned task but does not factor in how people can adapt and problem solve.

          How’s that annoying meme go? Tell me that you’ve never been a middle manager without telling me that you’ve never been a middle manager?

          You can keep pulling numbers out of your bum to argue that AI is worse. That just creates a simple bar to follow because… most workers REALLY are incompetent (now, how much of that has to do with being overworked and underpaid during late stage capitalism is a related discussion…). So all “AI Companies” have to do is beat ridiculously low metrics.

          Or we can acknowledge the real problem. “AI” is already a “better worker” than the vast majority of entry level positions (and that includes title inflation). We can either choose not to use it (fat chance) or we can acknowledge that we are looking at a fundamental shift in what employment is. And we can also realize that not hiring and training those entry level goobers is how you never have anyone who can actually “manage” the AI workers.

          • WanderingThoughts@europe.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            16 days ago

            how you never have anyone who can actually “manage” the AI workers.

            You just use other AI to manage those worker AI. Experiments do show that having different instances of AI/LLM, each with an assigned role like manager, designer, coding or quality checks, perform pretty good working together. But that was with small stuff. I haven’t seen anyone wiling to test with complex products.

    • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 days ago

      Dear CEOs: I will never accept 0.5% hallucinations as “A.I.” and if you don’t even know that, I want an A.I. machine cooking all your meals. If you aren’t ok with 1/200 of your meals containing poison, you’re expendable.

      Humans or even regular ass algorithms are fine. A.I. can predict protein folding. It should do a lot else unless there’s a generational leap from “making shitty images” to “as close to perfect as it gets.”

      • taladar@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        16 days ago

        Cooking meals seems like a good first step towards teaching AI programming. After all the recipe analogy is ubiquitous in programming intro courses. /s

        • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          17 days ago

          Did you see the wack ass Quake II version Microsoft bragged about? It wasn’t even playable. A fucking 12 year old could do better.

        • doodledup@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          22
          ·
          17 days ago

          Na man. It’s being used extensively in many jobs. Software development especially. You’re misinformed or have a biased view on it based on your personal experience with it.

          • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            20
            ·
            edit-2
            17 days ago

            I use it in software development and it hasn’t changed my life. It’s slightly more convenient than last gen code completion but I’ve never worked on a project where code per hours was the hold up. One less stand-up per week would probably increase developer productivity more than GitHub Copilot.

            • jubilationtcornpone@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              17 days ago

              Tried using Copilot on a few C# projects. I didn’t find it to be any better than Resharper. If anything it was worse because it would give me auto complete samples that were not even close to what I wanted. Not all the time but not infrequently either.

          • pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            17 days ago

            As a developer, we use AI “extensively” because it’s currently practically free and we rarely say no to free stuff.

            It is, indeed, slightly better than last year’s autocomplete.

            AI is also amazing at letting non-developers accomplish routine stuff that isn’t particularly interesting.

            If someone is trying to avoid paying for one afternoon of my time, an AI subscription and months of trial and error are a new option for them. So I guess that’s pretty neat.

            • Saleh@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              17 days ago

              And in 10 years we will need 128GB RAM in every computer just to load a website that could have been 1MB of html and embedded images in a browser using 256MB of RAM.

          • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            17 days ago

            Even if it does the basic shit at the expense of me working one less hour a week, it’s not worth paying for. And that ignores the downsides like spam, bots, data centers needing power/water, and politicians thinking GPU cards are national security secrets.

            I don’t think we need a Skynet scenario to imagine the downsides.

  • RandoMcRanderton@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    17 days ago

    “Stagnation is almost certain, and stagnation is slow-motion failure.”

    This has some strong Ricky Bobby vibes, “If you ain’t first, you’re last.” I never have understood how companies are supposed to have unlimited growth. At some point when every human on earth that can use their service/product is already doing so, where else is there to go? Isn’t stagnation being almost certain just a reality of a finite world?

    • Trailblazing Braille Taser@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      17 days ago

      At some point when every human on earth that can use their service/product is already doing so, where else is there to go?

      Ooh, I know:

      • Charge more (for less)
      • Autocannibalize (layoffs)

      I don’t even have an MBA, can you believe that?

    • cadekat@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      17 days ago

      Let me preface this by saying I’m pretty anticapitalist, but I think the idea is that you create a new product or expand into a new industry. You can maintain growth for a long time that way.

  • psvrh@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 days ago

    Just reminding everyone that Lutke is a right-wing shitheel, and that he and Shopify explicitly platform, support and make money from Nazism.

    Carry on.

  • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    16 days ago

    I develop AI agents rn as part time for my work and have yet to see one that can perform a real task unsupervised on their own. It’s not what agents are made for at all - they’re only capable of being an assistant or annotate, summarize data etc. Which is very useful but in an entirely different context.

    No agent can create features or even reliably fix bugs on their own yet and probably not for next few years at least. This is because having a dude at 50$ hour is much more reliable than any AI agent long term. If you need to roll back a regression bug introduced by an AI agent it’ll cost you 10-20 developer hours as minimum which negates any value you’ve gained already. Now you spent 1,000$ fix for your 50$ agent run where a person could have done that for 200$. Not to mention regression bugs are so incredibly expensive to fix and maintain so it’ll all scale exponentially. Not to mention liability of not having human oversight - what if the agent stops working? You’ll have to onboarding someone on an entire code base which would take days as very minimum.

    So his take on ai agents doing work is pretty dumb for the time being.

    That being said, AI tool use proficiency test is very much unavoidable, I don’t see any software company not using AI assistants so anyone who doesn’t will simply not get hired. Its like coding in notepad - yeah you can do it but its not a signal you want to send to your team cause you’d look stupid.

    • taladar@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      16 days ago

      Honestly, AI coding assistants (as in the ones working like auto-complete in the code editor) are very close to useless unless maybe you work in one of those languages like Java that are extremely verbose and lack expressiveness. I tried using a few of them for a while but it got to the point where I forgot to turn them on a few times (they do take up too much VRAM to keep running when not in use) and I didn’t even notice any productivity problems from not having them available.

      That said, conversational AI can sometimes be quite useful to figure out which library to look at for a given task or how to approach a problem.

    • Ogmios@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 days ago

      A lot was invested on the promise of AI, only to discover that it’s not capable of becoming this “super intelligence” people were banking on.

      • jubilationtcornpone@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        17 days ago

        They were going for “super intelligence” and instead they got Cliff Clavin from Cheers.

        “It’s a little-known fact that the tan became popular in what is known as the Bronze Age.”

      • nectar45@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        17 days ago

        Not until they find a way to properly simulate emotions on it

        Gonna take a while for that

  • affiliate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    17 days ago

    should just be a matter of saying “AI can’t do this job because it can’t properly do any job”. could even make that your email signature.