> all of us who did have been in absolute awe of the new capabilities and tools that AI can deliver to augment our skills, crafts, and fill in our gaps.
Am I fundamentally missing something about the experience upper management has with AI versus the experience of a mid/senior level developer in the trenches? I also have access to Cursor and a few other LLMs.
They're handy for bouncing ideas around and for some simple tasks, but I've hardly felt like it was a force multiplier.
When it comes to coding, the amount of times it's hallucinated a function that didn't exist or used a deprecated implementation has felt like a net neutral at best.
> We will add AI usage questions to our performance and peer review questionnaire.
> AI must be part of your GSD Prototype phase.
I can understand asking your devs and other employees to try out AI in their workflows in an attempt to get some productivity gains. Sounds like a responsible CEO trying to milk some value out of his existing headcount. But, it sounds absolutely dystopian to tie performance metrics or changing the project planning process to be AI-centric.
> Am I fundamentally missing something about the experience upper management has with AI
Read the post again. Does this look like something a LLM would struggle to write?
A lot of people in upper management spend an awful lot of time writing meaningless word salad. They take a single sentence like "20% is getting fired" and turn it into a four-page essay about "strategic realignment", "streamlining growth", and "enabling the future of the $corp family". It doesn't really mean anything, so there's no way for a LLM to get it wrong.
If you haven't used AI to do complicated tasks where the details actually matter, I'm not surprised you'd get the idea that it is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
You've hit the nail on the head imo. The reason business leadership is stoked about this stuff is because they don't actually know anything about how their product gets built.
LLMs are really good at this kind business-centric writing.
The style contains little actual content,
so anything that can produce a lot of words with limited content can do it. Also, meaning in business communication is almost an afterthought.
> Am I fundamentally missing something about the experience upper management has with AI versus the experience of a mid/senior level developer in the trenches?
Yes, the latter group have tried using it to get work done.
> But, it sounds absolutely dystopian to tie performance metrics or changing the project planning process to be AI-centric.
I don't think you can justify the use of "AI-centric" based on his letter. Maybe it's just a projection of fears? But nothing you quoted suggests 50% is more likely than 5%.
Am I fundamentally missing something about the experience upper management has with AI versus the experience of a mid/senior level developer in the trenches? I also have access to Cursor and a few other LLMs.
They're handy for bouncing ideas around and for some simple tasks, but I've hardly felt like it was a force multiplier.
When it comes to coding, the amount of times it's hallucinated a function that didn't exist or used a deprecated implementation has felt like a net neutral at best.
> We will add AI usage questions to our performance and peer review questionnaire.
> AI must be part of your GSD Prototype phase.
I can understand asking your devs and other employees to try out AI in their workflows in an attempt to get some productivity gains. Sounds like a responsible CEO trying to milk some value out of his existing headcount. But, it sounds absolutely dystopian to tie performance metrics or changing the project planning process to be AI-centric.
I doubt every project fits that paradigm.