Yes, I prefer the interviews over the monologues most of the time. The good thing about Ed is that it's not just hot air but he backs up arguments with sources and data. Personally, I prefer a little less anger with my coffee lol
Agreed. Cal brought a great balance. I don't even think of Ed as 'angry' so much as a 'scorned lover' archetype - I suspect he actually deeply loves technology but hates the lying, hypocrisy, and cons of the industry.
Because no one knows what the true cost is, especially with how all the money is circular.
For example, Microsoft 365 Copilot. A company might get a significant discount on the price per user for that SKU. What does that translate to? OpenAI is the actual brain behind it. So who ends up getting the money at the end?
OpenAI needs Microsoft's infra for training and market penetration. MS needs something AI to slap onto their products until they develop their own in-house.
Now, whether it's actually necessary or not for an enterprise is a question. There's a lot of FOMO spending. Maybe 5-10% of your workforce are programmers that need great AI. The rest of the admin, finance, other people? TBD.
As someone that is on the enterprise side in a non-tech F500 company, what I'm seeing is some FOMO and need to be part of the hype cycle. We're about to plonk a bunch of money on more Copilot licenses. Something got in the water where all the C-levels the past two months are pushing everyone to use AI but when they bring up examples of their uses its like "I use it to rewrite my emails" or prompt 'engineering' ideas that point more to patching over poor processes, data management, and decision-making within the organization or not.
What we're seeing across the board is every software company tossing AI onto their name or sales pitch and no one understanding what that actually means. But we will spend money on it because of FOMO.
I really question if we're reaching the end of the hype cycle to the point. I wish I were brave enough to put money on it. It feels like there was a command from up top to 'do something with AI' and leadership is scambling for some resume-building projects vs doing the hard work they should've done the past two years at a people and process level.
I'm at an org, where every medium to large company meeting talks about AI in similar breathless non-specific terms, yet m365 copilot is the only approved AI chat, and GH copilot the only AI coding tool.
They had a very kludgy, homegrown, but generally well-liked and cost effective EMR calls Vista.
The fact that it was cost effective, but required internal expertise was exactly what led the Trump administration to kill it.
Now they are transitioning to Cerner, the worse of the two major commerical EMRs by a fair margin, for many billions of dollars to the Kansas-based company, now owned by Oracle.
You can fill in the details of why this is happening by looking at where the CMS appointees at the time have landed in their post-government careers.
>Though I suppose an investigation into the matter would arguably have to look at whether a competent human driver would be driving at 17mph (27km/h) under those circumstances to begin with, rather than just comparing the relative reaction speeds, taking the hazardous situation for granted.
Sure but also throw in whether that driver is staring at their phone, distracting by something else, etc. I have been a skeptic of all this stuff for a while but riding in a Waymo in heavy fog changed my mind when questioning how well I or another driver would've done at that time of day and with those conditions.
Edit: Not 'allowed' but people do it constantly. Regular drivers, delivery drivers, city workers, construction trucks, etc. There may be laws but very little enforcement.
