The problem with this reasoning is it requires assuming that companies do things for no reason.

However possible it was to do this work in the past, it is now much easier to do it. When something is easier it happens more often.

No one is arguing it was impossible to do before. There's a lot of complexity and management attention and testing and programmer costs involved in building something in house such that you need a very obvious ROI before you attempt it especially since in house efforts can fail.

▲

lmm 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> There's a lot of complexity and management attention and testing and programmer costs involved in building something in house such that you need a very obvious ROI before you attempt it especially since in house efforts can fail.

I wonder how much of the benefit of AI is just companies permitting it to bypass their process overhead. (And how many will soon be discovering why that process overhead was there)

	▲	thfuran 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Sure, there's a lot of process that is entirely justified, but there's also a whole lot of process that exists for reasons that are no longer relevant or simply because there are a lot more people whose job it is to make process than whose job it is to stop people from making too much process.

▲

coldtea 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>The problem with this reasoning is it requires assuming that companies do things for no reason

Experience shows that that's the case at least 50% of the time