AI is a change management problem.

Using it well requires a competent team, working together with trust and transparency, to build processes that are designed to effectively balance human guidance/expertise with what LLM's are good at. Small teams are doing very big things with it.

Most organizations, especially large organizations, are so far away from a healthy culture that AI is amplifying the impact of that toxicity.

Executives who interpret "Story Points" as "how much time is that going to take" are asking why everything isn't half a point now. They're so far removed from the process of building maintainable and effective software that they're simply looking for AI to serve as a simple pass through to the bottom line.

The recent study showing that 95% of AI pilots failed to deliver ROI is a case study in the ineffectiveness of modern management to actually do their jobs.

Or maybe it's just not as good as it's been sold to be. I haven't seen any small teams doing very big things with it, which ones are you thinking of?

I'm rather tired of this ai apologism bit where every downside is explained away as "it would've happened anyways". AI destroying people's brains and causing paychosis? They would've gone psychotic anyways! AI causing company culture problems? The company was toxic anyways!

Instruments are not inculpable as you think they are.

> Using it well requires a competent team, working together with trust and transparency, to build processes that are designed to effectively balance human guidance/expertise with what LLM's are good at. Small teams are doing very big things with it.

This reads a bit like "you're holding it wrong". If you need your team and organization to already be in a perfect state before AI usage will stop doing damage, what is the point of it in the first place.

Especially if AI is promoted as a "magic bullet" that will likely especially be uses by teams that are already dysfunctional.

< small teams are doing very big things?

Another claim for AI success, followed by, nothing specific

> Executives who interpret "Story Points" as "how much time is that going to take"

aside, but I have yet to meet a single person (dev, qa, pm, exec) who doesn't do this.

This so many times over, using/introducing AI in an already managerially dysfunctional organisation is like giving automatic weapons to a band of vikings - it will with utmost certitude result in a quickening of their demise.

A demise that in the case of a modern dysfunctional organisation would otherwise often be arriving a few years later as a results of complete and utter bureaucratic failure.

My experience is that all attempts to elevate technology to a "pivotal force" for the worse is always missing the underlying social and moral failure of the majority (or a small, but important, managerial minority) to act for the common good rather than egotistic self-interest.

I saw that study, it was indeed about pilots. When do you ever expect a pilot to immediately start driving big revenue increases? The whole thing is a strawman

[dead]