If I have decent autocomplete where I type half the characters and the AI predicts the other half that technically satisfies this metric.
Notice the loophole: there’s no qualification of how much problem context the AI started from. Most of the problem -> code “work” would still be done by a human in that situation — even if technically 50% of the code is “AI generated” [because the human did all the hard work of generating the context necessary for those tokens, including the preceding tokens of code].
As the saying goes… lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Funny, and ironically, enough, I turned off autocorrect on iOS after it moved to a GPT-2 model because it grew increasingly inaccurate the more I used it. (The Markov chain implementation that preceded it wasn't much better, though I remember autocorrect on iOS being significantly better many years ago.)
A lot of my problems show up on lists like “25 falsehoods programmers believe about addresses”. These were things that were maybe acceptable in 1999, because they didn’t know better, but only having a single street line is a problem.
I could rant, but half of it would be sales directors who have never used Salesforce shooting us in the foot.
It's '00s era CRM and its main competition is Dynamics ('90s era CRM) and SAP ('80s era CRM)...
Its customers need big enterprise and there isn't a lot of other competition in that space. Not stuff with an ecosystem of systems integrators buzzing around.
If you don't need all that get Hubspot or Zoho or SugarCRM or something.
Ah that distinct phase of the Gartner Hype Cycle where CEOs claim massive amounts of use of Technology X regardless of whatever the underlying reality is
Is this really the new reality, that AI will increasingly replace the work of humans? A company is not just about getting work done, but also about shared values and cohesion, which no AI can generate.
I spoke to my half-brother about this. He worked for a company up until the late 90's for almost 20 years, then got laid off. They offered him various programs to return to school and take a new career path, but he didn't want to do that, so it's really his fault. He has been bitter ever since.
I showed him this post and he had the following to say about it:
"Unless your company is a non-profit, then anything the company does is for the purpose of profit, and everything else is subordinate to that. A 'Puritan Work Ethic' culture makes people believe work has inherent value, so expressions of shared value, cohesion, culture, etc. are done to take advantage of that and convince people to work for less. So shared values and cohesion help manage salaries and wages, but if people end up not being needed, then those aren't needed."
I don't know. If AI replaces jobs, or makes most of them "copy-paste what the AI said," what is the meaning of that?
I asked him that, and he said this:
"I guess everyone's gonna have to be blue collar now or join the military."
The workforce is made up mostly of mediocre people who want to do as little work as possible. Management is made up mostly of short term goal seekers who want to pay as little for labor as possible. There's no slowing the train that's going down this path.
If I have decent autocomplete where I type half the characters and the AI predicts the other half that technically satisfies this metric.
Notice the loophole: there’s no qualification of how much problem context the AI started from. Most of the problem -> code “work” would still be done by a human in that situation — even if technically 50% of the code is “AI generated” [because the human did all the hard work of generating the context necessary for those tokens, including the preceding tokens of code].
As the saying goes… lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Funny, and ironically, enough, I turned off autocorrect on iOS after it moved to a GPT-2 model because it grew increasingly inaccurate the more I used it. (The Markov chain implementation that preceded it wasn't much better, though I remember autocorrect on iOS being significantly better many years ago.)
To my understanding Salesforce was already selling hot air, so their pivot to force Agentforce on other companies seems logical.
In their defense it is a pretty nice CRM.
But yeah this could probably be maintained by like five people.
It’s Microsoft Access for the web, with PHPMyAdmin mixed in.
Which, surprisingly, is a really necessary product and quite useful.
I disagree on it being a good crm.
A lot of my problems show up on lists like “25 falsehoods programmers believe about addresses”. These were things that were maybe acceptable in 1999, because they didn’t know better, but only having a single street line is a problem.
I could rant, but half of it would be sales directors who have never used Salesforce shooting us in the foot.
It's Jira for sales. Infinitely customizable and reportable, but infinitely frustratable for us rank-and-file plebs.
I haven't used an implementation of SFDC that I've liked yet.
It's '00s era CRM and its main competition is Dynamics ('90s era CRM) and SAP ('80s era CRM)...
Its customers need big enterprise and there isn't a lot of other competition in that space. Not stuff with an ecosystem of systems integrators buzzing around.
If you don't need all that get Hubspot or Zoho or SugarCRM or something.
Ah that distinct phase of the Gartner Hype Cycle where CEOs claim massive amounts of use of Technology X regardless of whatever the underlying reality is
Yup, Salesforce is listed and ceo needs to keep it's share price pumped.
So I expect to pay less for his product now that his biggest cost has been cut in half.
Did they fire half of their employees? Or are they laying around half of the time?
Art of war
Is this really the new reality, that AI will increasingly replace the work of humans? A company is not just about getting work done, but also about shared values and cohesion, which no AI can generate.
I spoke to my half-brother about this. He worked for a company up until the late 90's for almost 20 years, then got laid off. They offered him various programs to return to school and take a new career path, but he didn't want to do that, so it's really his fault. He has been bitter ever since.
I showed him this post and he had the following to say about it:
"Unless your company is a non-profit, then anything the company does is for the purpose of profit, and everything else is subordinate to that. A 'Puritan Work Ethic' culture makes people believe work has inherent value, so expressions of shared value, cohesion, culture, etc. are done to take advantage of that and convince people to work for less. So shared values and cohesion help manage salaries and wages, but if people end up not being needed, then those aren't needed."
I don't know. If AI replaces jobs, or makes most of them "copy-paste what the AI said," what is the meaning of that?
I asked him that, and he said this:
"I guess everyone's gonna have to be blue collar now or join the military."
Or statements like these simply tell you more about the company and the true quality of work it's doing.
The workforce is made up mostly of mediocre people who want to do as little work as possible. Management is made up mostly of short term goal seekers who want to pay as little for labor as possible. There's no slowing the train that's going down this path.
true! but all I know is that I'm seeing more and more great professionals, especially in the IT sector, being made redundant :(