AI-generated code is just this generation's version of copying code from the web or from another part of the codebase. Sometimes that person understood the code fully, and sometimes they just checked to see if the output matched what they expected.
The only uniquely dangerous thing about this recent iteration of that problem is the massive scale.
The CEOs of these companies are trying to justify inflated stock prices that were high based on the expectation of future growth.
No, CEOs are trying to show their board, investors, and activist investors that they have a plan for how to take advantage of AI and can at least keep up with their competitors use of AI, if not surpass them. I work at a large enterprise (close to 50k employees) and VPs are being told that they need to find ways for AI to have an impact on their department or their leaders will find someone who can. If it isn't happening fast enough consultants are brought in to take over their department's transformative roadmap and leaders who can't keep up are relegated to being SMEs until they are eventually replaced. I'm not in the room when that message is given, but I've seen the rapid shift of VPs who were raising alarms nearly immediately turn into AI cheerleaders.
If you work for a publicly traded or VC backed company I assure you your CEO does not have a choice on whether to jump on the AI bandwagon. That's not how hype driven bubbles work.
What is sudden about this? CEOs have been doing this for over two years (at least). Duolingo and Klarna were among the first, and both of those were in Q1 2024. This is not new behavior.
Sora was useless because the primary value from video generation is porn. Anyone not willing to allow porn shouldn't be wasting their time on GenAI video R&D.
Every company has values. A value is simply a judgement about what is important. Maximizing shareholder value is absolutely a company value (probably the most common one). Maximizing customer, employee, or society value would be different values a company could have. There are plenty of companies that focus on customer or society value, but they are usually nonprofit. If someone is investing in a company they usually expect to be the most import stakeholder to the company.
Most companies don't actually document their company values. They use principles like Integrity and Excellence that are simply core principles that every company should strive for. You can tell if your company's values are "real" if you could imagine another successful company having nearly opposite values (without breaking the law).
Not every company should appeal to every investor, employee, or company. I wanted to work for companies in my youth that worked me to the bone while accelerating my career growth. Now that I have a family I want to work for a company that respects my personal time. I'm glad there are companies out there with different values so I was able to choose employers who aligned with my values at the time.
> "Our vehicles are giant paperweights right now through no fault of ours," one wrote on Reddit.
No fault? None at all? That seems... counter-intuitive.
I get it that the technology failed spectacularly, and that this is a serious problem for which people need to be held to account, but my car is working just fine.
After a few months of Windows 95, I switched to NT 3.5. Much better.
The believe the main reason is because semiannually is the standard in the rest of the Western world, so if a change is made it makes sense to align with that. About half of EU public companies now file semiannually after they changed their regulations in 2013.
It does widen the gap for insider information and trading on it -- which does screw the little guy (or at least little guy traders). If you're a long term investor this really should not make a difference.
It doesn't just screw over the little guy. It screws over retirees that are in the phase of their life where they are selling assets for income.
I do sometimes choose an item that is not the cheapest in the store for reasons of quality.
That's not the same thing. The question was perhaps a little vague but it was still pretty clear he meant paying more than the sticker price.
And then you should look at Ford who paid their employees wages high enough to allow them to buy a Ford. Circular money.
I can't be sure if that was sarcasm, but that myth about Ford's rationale for paying higher wages is not true. Ford was dealing with 370% annual turnover and had to do something to keep people in such mind-numbing repetitious jobs. Within a year of increasing wages turnover dropped to 16% and production levels increased 40% (mostly because they could consistently fill third shift positions).
Unintended consequences are the most common consequences. Once you take that into account, the world makes a lot more sense. I totally get what you're talking about, though. I felt the same way when I first read "Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom", and thought "whuffie" could be a really interesting idea if actually implemented. Eventually, I really I realized it's just as bad as stuff like Polymarket is turning out to be. Pure democracy has a way of always spiraling out of control.
What are you talking about? It does that kind of thing _now_.
I work for a Microsoft shop and use Copilot a lot. When I have a hard question, I use Claude Opus, otherwise ChatGPT is fine.
Dude's got an impressive CV, no doubt. Using this to slam Microsoft is lame. He's written a ton of impressive code, literally using it as a CV to get a job at Microsoft (with SysInternals, nee WinInternals).
Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce
