What I really want to know is, were the people putting out workslop, putting out anything better BEFORE AI. I mean, maybe they are just using a different tool to suck.
I think instead of stating that their performance was going to be measured by the quantitative measure of how much AI they used, instead of the qualitative measure of output, while making AI available to them, the CEO might have seen different results.
It’s almost like malicious compliance. “Hey everyone, do this.” Then they all do JUST that. What would you expect? LOL.
In my experience in a way it was better, because they had very low volume of output. Yes, pretty bad already but the GenaAI turned to their volume to 11.
This is one of the biggest downside, the worst people get the most volume out of it because they don’t know or carevto curate the output.
Looking at my last job before I left when AI was being pushed heavily I think I can see what you mean actually.
Before the incompetents would look at something and pass it on to second line without thinking. Now they copy paste the idiot AI outputs. It makes their stats look way better, wastes customer time much more and doesn’t help when it finally gets to me after 2 weeks of bullshit.
Customer satisfaction would be higher if you didn’t use it and did nothing. You are a net drain to the company now because you are trying to do things you don’t understand because of blind reliance on LLMs.
Heh, reminds me of an email thread. Someone stated a fairly straightforward, clear, and actionable course of action.
Then someone followed up with a GenAI email basically trying to be a sycophant to the person who wrote the plan and agreeing with them.
A VP did not get excited by the person that actually plainly declared what to do, but did announce that he was going to set up a meeting with the sycophant because he displayed so much insight, despite only repeating the first guy in a more confusing and buzzwordy way.
The AI generates corpo-speak in a very exciting way that further exacerbates an existing problem of promoting the wrong people.
What I really want to know is, were the people putting out workslop, putting out anything better BEFORE AI. I mean, maybe they are just using a different tool to suck.
I think instead of stating that their performance was going to be measured by the quantitative measure of how much AI they used, instead of the qualitative measure of output, while making AI available to them, the CEO might have seen different results.
It’s almost like malicious compliance. “Hey everyone, do this.” Then they all do JUST that. What would you expect? LOL.
In my experience in a way it was better, because they had very low volume of output. Yes, pretty bad already but the GenaAI turned to their volume to 11.
This is one of the biggest downside, the worst people get the most volume out of it because they don’t know or carevto curate the output.
Looking at my last job before I left when AI was being pushed heavily I think I can see what you mean actually.
Before the incompetents would look at something and pass it on to second line without thinking. Now they copy paste the idiot AI outputs. It makes their stats look way better, wastes customer time much more and doesn’t help when it finally gets to me after 2 weeks of bullshit.
Customer satisfaction would be higher if you didn’t use it and did nothing. You are a net drain to the company now because you are trying to do things you don’t understand because of blind reliance on LLMs.
Heh, reminds me of an email thread. Someone stated a fairly straightforward, clear, and actionable course of action.
Then someone followed up with a GenAI email basically trying to be a sycophant to the person who wrote the plan and agreeing with them.
A VP did not get excited by the person that actually plainly declared what to do, but did announce that he was going to set up a meeting with the sycophant because he displayed so much insight, despite only repeating the first guy in a more confusing and buzzwordy way.
The AI generates corpo-speak in a very exciting way that further exacerbates an existing problem of promoting the wrong people.