I replaced all my software team with agents which can work 24h a day on the product and now none of the software works and I'm out $600000 waaaaaa
- Exec
this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2026
637 points (99.5% liked)
Technology
86159 readers
3407 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
This has been the case ever since things that seem great, like google cloud computing...and your little project just bankrupted you.
May they get utterly Forded
It's funny because they do this to other people; they just never thought it'd happen to them. FAFO 🫡
Here's a real a cost saving prompt:
"Translate the contents of every single document in our databases into as many languages (including dead and constructed fictional languages) as possible."
Now you can fire the one Hispanic guy you hired because you assumed he could speak Hindi.
Anyone who fell for this grift deserves it and much worse.
People, usually who have never done the job, still love to argue that it can compete with software devs and infra engineers.
The sad part they don't see (or maybe care about) is while it can't currently (and absolutely not llms) they're pushing a narrative that we should automate everyone and everything which is dangerous and moronic.
Well, we should automate everything that can be automated - for the benefit of everyone. Last part is something not seen on worldwide scale ever, just yet
I understand the argument for automation being used where appropriate to benefit us and allow us the freedom to focus on other things, however, I'm skeptical due to the social behavior already occurring from the powers that be expressing the desire to enslave us, if not just kill us, using the mere concept of AI as justification.
And funny enough, pushing this hard will only leave a bad taste regarding any mention of artificial intelligence or automation. Whereas if these people just fucked off they might have been able to sell whatever usefulness it has in the correct places.
It happens every couple of decades with AI. Since it's a broader field than most people think, we have a pretty long cycle of a new development looking exciting, people getting way too excited and optimistic, the development being exactly what it was promised to be, and then people getting disappointed and avoiding anything with the AI label. Then we decide that because we're used to this new thing, it can be used in stuff as was originally appropriate but it no longer qualifies as AI, because "that's not AI, it's just ___".
I use AI in my job and I give it the business. Its gonna be spendy.
This reporting is basically dishonest. The execs are not confused. They knew this was likely to occur, because we all told them so.
Now, you can argue that they hoped otherwise, that they were being ridiculously optimistic. But to argue that they didn't expect it is simply unbelievable.
I think you're underestimating how clueless and braindead executives can be.
It's the quest for infinite growth and fomo, just needed a good/bad salesman to come along
The modern executive who got their post from being mates with the right people, having attended the right schools and relentless self-promotion isn't a highly analitical person who sistematically and in depth researches their options before chosing what to do.
This is unsurprising given that a system were the image one projects is critical to one's career progression rewards almost the opposite: they're supposed to look decisive and confident.
The myth of CxO competence is just that: a myth and the product of confusing the characteristics of the character they're playing with the characteristics of the actor, something we're definitelly egged on to do by the Media.
It's only unbelievable that the execs did not expect this for those who believe the execs are actually competent at management rather than being people born in the right families and whose greatest competence is in playing the right role for the right audience.
The KPMG report, initially flagged by the Register, surveyed 2,145 senior execs across 20 countries, finding that an astonishing 29 percent of them had no idea where the growing costs associated with AI were coming from.
They're just dumb assholes
Dumb assholes that don't read the reports or pay attention in meetings where this is cost is brought up.
Well it was cheaper before, till Ai vendors increased prices to cover the real costs
alexa play despacito
Living room lights off
The first hit was free.
Here is how it has gone down for a few companies I have visibillity on:
- Investors with enough stock to have influence demand the company use AI and cut staff
- remaining ataff struggles to fit AI into their now bloated workload
- quality slips and stumbles. a few employees are able to make the transition and cause huge AI bills while attempting to cover the workload
- everyone gets upset and nothing gets done well
It looks like investors who have also invested in AI are trying to push its use and it is stumbling all over the place. If a company cant adapt it is basically stripped for parts and sold off to companies that are handling it better.
its not like its obscure though, since the signs were all there that NVIDIA, The main AI companies were looking for sucks to hold the bag.
I look at AI usage at work as basically taking on a bad but salvageable employee. For every use case, it needs a manager overseeing all their work and adapting to their strengths and weaknesses while also considering cost. It's a deployment problem created by over promising.
The salvageable employee will actually learn.
The AI doesn't learn.
They're only equivalent for the kind of manager who thinks investing in people is a waste of money.
We gave it a simple task of scan the internet for industry news, put results in a table formatted like x. It goes around 3-4 days before messing up. We have concluded that if it was an actual employee it would have either been sacked or put on performance review.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I swear, execs are some of the most gullible people on earth. I know some of them, and none of them are very bright, just very greedy.
My lesson in this came really early in my career. One of our execs was selling vapourware. Just promising our product, that we hadn't made yet, could do literally anything. Then he insisted we build it on this platform he must have had shares in the way he pushed it, only it was also vapourware and didn't do half the things it said it did.
He found it utterly inconceivable that a company would sell a product that didn't do what it said despite doing the exact same thing himself. He was completely delusional.
They're not selected for intelligence, but for sociopathy.
And nepotism.
And cronyism.
Coming from the upper-middle and upper class and having attended the right schools and become mates with the right people is very highly correlated with becoming a top level executive.
I think it’s more sociopaths rising by being sociopaths and then promoting gullible idiots they can use and control with no issue, then blame when shit goes wrong
As we've seen with Donald Trump and George W. Bush, if you're wealthy enough or in an aristocratic social group, you fail upwards.
And if you always fail upwards, it's very easy to not gain the skills to succeed.
load more comments
(1 replies)
If you've ever spent 10 minutes using an AI agent, you'd know that there's no way to predict how many tokens it's going to use before you give it a task. It can be $0.20 worth sometimes or $20 other times. Or anything, really.
It's only after watching it churn away for a few minutes that you can assume it's gotten stuck and have the option of pulling the plug before the bill gets run up too high. But you need to watch it like a hawk and you need to be the one paying the bill otherwise you're not going to care (e.g. workers using AI at work aren't paying for it, their company is).
Bold of you to assume these old people even engage with the business they claim to own.
load more comments
(3 replies)
- Build up reliance on AI, which looks really cheap
- You can now replace employees with AI so fire away!
- You are now completely dependent on AI and a handful of employees
- AI company sees they have you and start jacking up rates. If you could afford paying for people before then you have the $ to pay high rates.
- Company now wonders why costs are back to where they were before and the AI isn't working out as expected.
- AI company hijacks your processes, trade secrets, and market to offer the same thing for cheaper than you can. Raises rates for competitors to cover its own token use and simultaneously drive the others out of business.
It's particularly funny because I'm pretty sure AI companies are still selling the service below cost to try to retain market share (and drive small competitors out of business). They just aren't taking quite as big a loss on every token with the increased prices.
load more comments
(9 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
You'd think the cocaine-snorting classes would understand that only the first hit's free.
I guess this proves that the execs are clueless about AI.
view more: next ›