Comments

• Asafum@feddit.nl ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  “Ok let’s try this another way. I’m going to leave the room and I promise there won’t be any recordings. When I leave just say out loud what the positives are of AI ok?”

  (Leaves.)

  “I get to fire all my employees and keep all the money for myself!”

  source

  • djsaskdja@reddthat.com ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    That’s only if it actually works. Which…it doesn’t.

    source
• gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  see, we pour money into this hole, magic happens, and then we fire large chunks of our workforce while ignoring the consequences of hollowing out nuanced domain knowledge; it’s quite an efficient system for saving money in the near term.

  source
• salacious_coaster@infosec.pub ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Step 3 is profit

  source
• fubarx@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  The FT has used AI tools to identify these mentions of the technology in SEC 10-k filings and earnings transcripts, then to categorise each mention. The results were then checked and analysed to help draw a nuanced picture about what companies were saying to different audiences about the technology.

  So… using AI to find out who is using AI and warn of underuse of AI.

  source
• FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  The title and the article don’t match, like……at all. The article states that all the biggest companies absolutely can state and show how AI is extremely useful to them.

  source

  • msage@programming.dev ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    They did not say what the biggest companies use the AI for.

    Article said companies in the server supply chain are happy, and that executives are happy, and some companies not using LLMs have actual use cases, but that’s it.

    source

    • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      It didn’t say anything about companies in the “server supply chain” being happy. It also said……well not much really. Nothing that could support the title.

      source

      • -> View More Comments