Amazon has shut down an internal company leaderboard which ranked employees based on how much they used AI tools at work.

  • Kissaki@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    11 hours ago

    It only makes sense if

    • you want to drive up adoption because
      • you’re confident in usefulness already
      • want to find out about usefulness and need the userbase and usage for it
    • you have ulterior motives to push for AI adoption

    I can imagine leadership - disconnected from real work and any practical AI use experience - being misinformed and misguided into believing marketing and hype-cycle about gains. It also doesn’t seem implausible that leadership wants to drive up adoption to quickly gain feedback and results about usefulness and gains/loss.

    In good faith, it requires a certain mindset (no care about the waste or potential loss or risk) and distance from practice. Not implausible, though, in my eyes.

    • iocase@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 hours ago

      personally oversaw a 300% increase in lines of code committed. 40% reduction in delays and 60% reduction in feature implementation design cycles. As a result, increased company revenue by 30%

      This is all the explanation you need on why they’re doing this bone headed shit. It’s not their problem in a few quarters when they jump ship after padding their resume on the company’s dime.

      • pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        31 minutes ago

        Sure. But I haven’t seen credible evidence that any of this drove any revenue.

        Correct features, thoughtfully planned, and expertly executed, at the right time, sometimes drive new revenue.

        AI slop is about 99% orthogonal to anything that helps drive revenue.

        People will claim it helps with timing, but timing only works if the feature is correct and AI makes organizations that rarely got things correct in the first place even less likely to get things correct.