| ▲ | monksy 14 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Roy Sutherland has a really good take on AI. Most of the AI companies are targeting a cost cutting proposoition where they should target a value creation one. Targeting and pushing towards a regressive elimination route is tox and destructive to those around it. Then again the CEOs of these companies want to get their company at all cost to society. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | ncouture 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The title of the original article feels like click-baiut to me. It's covering an act of violence under the pretext that people hate AI. In fact it's a very sad story about a 20 year old throwing their life away instead of fighting for what he believes is right through non-violent activism and/or regulations. Last year I wrote an article asking the very question "Who will be the next Luddites?", National Geographics followed-up months later. I'm sure many before, after or in-between covered the same topic. There is truth to it, we will be impacted but let's not forget we went through this during the industial revolution and we should be better equipped than ever to fight using meaningful non-violent acts and operations. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/who-neo-luddites-more-importa... http://nationalgeographic.com/history/article/luddite-indust... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | Balgair 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
So, at my BigCo, this rings very true. We've tried to internally pitch many ideas to the larger organization before but mostly got nothing back. Finally, one of the various board members talked to my boss and told them that, essentially, it has to be top line growth, not bottom line savings. We looked this up and it came down to some MBA mumbo-jumbo about how X% of growth is better than that same X% of savings once you run the math (?). Look, I know, that's not how percentages work and I know that savings actually do matter. But in 'I have an MBA-land' the mantra is topline > bottomline. So, then we started to pitch ideas around growth (new lines, more customer sales, more customers, etc). Which went ... nowhere ... again. Time goes by again, and another helpful person reaches out and tells us that our ideas are 'not worth considering' as they 'don't meaningfully impact revenue targets'. Again, essentially, just to justify the salary-time that these internal boards spend, the idea has to be net positive. Then it we learned that, no, it has to impact the revenue to 1%. For our BigCo that in the ~$10M ballpark. We do have the customer base to support that, but it is in the revenue ballpark of Atari or the Hypixel servers. Look, either way, the run-around that I get told is that for AI projects that we pitch internally: 1) Top line growth only 2) ~1% increase in revenue (~$10M). Now, why anyone would not just go take that ~$10M idea and not just make a company themselves is beyond me, but I don't get paid the big bucks, so who knows. Still, that is what these BigCos are looking for: Growth in the ~$1-10M range. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||