Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

1.4K

I have seen hit or mixed results. For some very basic tasks I have been able to use [company approved "ai"] for some dev/ops/etc tasks and it did probably save me around 2-3 hours of extra work just by giving it error output and then checking the changes it suggested. I don't know if it will be worth the overall cost in the long term though. That is yet to be seen.

Humans are the most expensive part of your business for a reason. The "AI" is not good enough (yet) to fix prod problems at 3:00 AM that have never happened before.

Archive: https://archive.today/cR7gz

From the post:

>Nearly four decades ago, when the personal computer boom was in full swing, a phenomenon known as the “productivity paradox” emerged. It was a reference to how, despite companies’ huge investments in new technology, there was scant evidence of a corresponding gain in workers’ efficiency. Today, the same paradox is appearing, but with generative artificial intelligence. According to recent research from McKinsey & Company, nearly eight in 10 companies have reported using generative A.I., but just as many have reported “no significant bottom-line impact.”

I have seen hit or mixed results. For some very basic tasks I have been able to use [company approved "ai"] for some dev/ops/etc tasks and it did probably save me around 2-3 hours of extra work just by giving it error output and then checking the changes it suggested. I don't know if it will be worth the overall cost in the long term though. That is yet to be seen. Humans are the most expensive part of your business for a reason. The "AI" is not good enough (yet) to fix prod problems at 3:00 AM that have never happened before. Archive: https://archive.today/cR7gz From the post: >>Nearly four decades ago, when the personal computer boom was in full swing, a phenomenon known as the “productivity paradox” emerged. It was a reference to how, despite companies’ huge investments in new technology, there was scant evidence of a corresponding gain in workers’ efficiency. Today, the same paradox is appearing, but with generative artificial intelligence. According to recent research from McKinsey & Company, nearly eight in 10 companies have reported using generative A.I., but just as many have reported “no significant bottom-line impact.”

(post is archived)

[–] • 4 pts

Money isn't their primary goal in this race.

That's why most AI are invested by kikes.

https://vid8.poal.co/user/AOU/y3PIwiO

[–] • 1 pt

Was there a little owl-looking pause?

[–] • 0 pt

Any shape duplicated and mirrored will reveal patterns that we might recognize with stuff.

But in that case it's too much of a cohencidence, coming from a sister raping pedophile jew.

[–] • 1 pt

AI will end up exactly the way offshoring did. Which is to say, at first it was exciting and new but it never produced the exciting benefits people assumed it would produce. But we'll end up getting cheap data centers after the glut of new data centers are built and the AI race winds down.

[–] • 2 pts

This is a old #bash.org quote.

If you keep annoying me, I will replace you with a very small shell script.

Now I can replace pajeet with a LLM and I would rather pay for the LLM than the pajeet to exist.

[–] • 1 pt

What is the plan when the AI doesn't pay tax or buy groceries like the humans it replaced? Raise tax on whatever is left of the human labor force?

[–] • 1 pt

I keep saying shit like this is the entire reason for the RTO requirements for large companies/city/state gov's.

What are they going to do when the company simply does now need/have those employees anymore?