• laz@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    35·
    11 hours ago

    Dude my nephew was telling me this an AI company galytix is literally running on Indian grads and claiming to be ai what a scam

    • VinegarChunks@lemmus.orgEnglish
      13·
      5 hours ago

      I really wonder to what degree “Self Driving Vehicles” are being completely or partially supervised and controlled by an overseas desk worker.

        • ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip
          2·
          2 hours ago

          0% my dude. There is no lvl 5 driving car. Anything below lvl 4 requires human supervision (how often is a different topic).

        • Jiral@lemmy.org
          3·
          3 hours ago

          Source? Has it progressed so much? I remember substantial double digit percentages.

  • shuffle3765@sh.itjust.works
    139·
    7 hours ago

    Firstly why would you pay API prices when you can use the subscription plans for 20x less

    Secondly that much API spend would require dozens of senior engineers using it full time, like you’d be doing the work of an entire, quite large engineering team not a single junior

    • SleeplessCityLights@programming.dev
      24·
      5 hours ago

      They are changing the pricing plans to move away from the subscription model to a metered model. Beause operating at a loss is not a long term goal. People have no idea what July is going to be like, when MS changes Copilot to metered in June it’s going to be bad. I checked the usage for my companies plan yesterday and we are going to be paying more. At least 2x. Good luck to the companies that are burning tokens as part of their business plan. Either they get massive bills and go broke, or lose access to Ai after 5 days.

    • RamenJunkie@midwest.socialEnglish
      10·
      6 hours ago

      Aren’t some of the LLMs moving away from the unlimited token subscriptions since they are losing a ton of money?

      I don’t really follow that, I would neverpay for an LLM.

    • Jiral@lemmy.org
      4·
      6 hours ago

      Currently, yes. However, if you build your business on highly subsidised temporary prices, you are probably like the CEOs that can’t think further than their shareholders. If you believe there will be flat rates in the end I have a bridge to sell to you.

  • ozoned@piefed.socialEnglish
    78·
    16 hours ago

    Literally was in a presentation at work the other day where they said someone used 2 million tokens and the next person used 1 million and they were so excited by it.

    I didn’t get it. I asked went 2 million was better than 1 million. The VP basically said it’s not, just costs us more money.

    So why the hell is the presentation acting like it’s a fucking victory?

    • shuffle3765@sh.itjust.works
      182·
      7 hours ago

      Because it’s a proxy metric for adoption. Currently you generally want your engineers to be using it as much as you can afford to so that they all learn and improve and adapt existing processes etc

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        5·
        2 hours ago

        Which is a stupid mindset.

        “Go forth and burn tokens and your performance will be measured on that”

        Looks like I’m going to make a for to ask for a for every word in /usr/share/dict/words. Look at all the tokens I burned.

        It doesn’t reflect upon business value, performance, or education.

        It’s even worse than the disastrous lines of code metric.

        Their problem is they have no idea what to expect, so to signal affinity to hype, they just measure tokens.

      • VinegarChunks@lemmus.orgEnglish
        9·
        4 hours ago

        Engineers under such incentives should ask AI how to most easily and speedily consume as many credits as possible, I bet it knows a great way

      • RagingRobot@lemmy.world
        3·
        4 hours ago

        But why force adoption? If it’s really good people would adopt it naturally like we do with every other tool. Why for this really expensive one, do we now flip the whole system on its head?

        • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
          2·
          1 hour ago

          It’s kinda like the push to return to office. It was driven by corps having invested in the “can’t fail (ignoring the last previous crash)” real estate market and buying their offices. If everyone suddenly works from home instead of in the office, then those investments go bad because demand for office space is way down. So they tell people to go back to the office, hoping to return to that “every business needs offices!” status quo and save their investments. Though the demand is false (especially combined with layoffs), so it won’t necessarily cause any new corp to want that office space. If they don’t have the sunk cost, then they don’t need to accept the rest of the fallacy.

          With AI, it’s the same but just replace building investment with R&D as well as data centre investment. A lot of the companies really pushing AI are the ones that will profit from people going along with that. They really want to build a dependence amongst users as well as a good reputation for execs so they can get a return on the investment. Then there’s also the True Believers (who think LLMs are brilliant AIs that can solve anything if given the right prompts) and the FOMOs (who don’t know much about it but see the world moving towards it and don’t want to miss it because if it was a real AI, missing it could be a massive mistake). There’s also some people who just don’t have various skills and want the AI agents to fill those gaps (and probably don’t have a very good idea about what the LLMs are actually doing in those gaps).

          At this point, I think it’s a mistake to go all in on this tech. LLMs aren’t reliable, and their ability to “perform” is more about their flexibility than being well-suited for any task. They’ll go directly from saying things that seem “insightful” (they have no insight) to making the dumbest “mistake” (a mistake requires intent, which they lack, they just predict tokens). But there’s all kinds of false and true (albeit misguided IMO) demand right now and it’s still in early pricing mode (remember the intent is to make that investment money back).

          Oh and there’s also China which has been making more efficient models and open sourcing some of them. If they continue to do this, there’s a decent chance those investments will never give the desired returns, at least not to those who are trying to sell tokens. Or those who depend on those selling tokens, like any hardware companies selling hardware under the assumption that it will then make the money to pay for itself (which I believe both nVidia and AMD have done).

          It’s mirroring the dotcom bubble with that last bit because network cable companies started loaning the money to pay for their cables to ISPs, expecting returns that never came.

        • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
          3·
          3 hours ago

          I don’t favor forced adoption… but your second sentence just isn’t true of individual people. It is ture of the industry in general. But individual people tend to stick with what they know and shy away from new things until something forces them out of that state. Usually it is someone else who tried a new tool and is suddenly able to do things easier or what not. It only takes a few power users to turn the tide. So forcing shouldn’t be needed. Just enabling those power users.

          • Jiral@lemmy.org
            1·
            3 hours ago

            Curious, back in the early days they did not have to force young employees to embrace the web. Now with AI they have to.

      • deeves@lemmy.world
        14·
        7 hours ago

        Also, I’ve been noticing more and more APIs are adopting a policy where they get rid of any unused credits that you’ve paid for at the end of the month, creating a ‘use it or lose it’ FOMO mentality.

        All very normal and sane.

    • rainwall@piefed.socialEnglish
      50·
      13 hours ago

      Because they believe that AI will replace payroll, which is generally a businesses highest expense. The more AI usage, the more likely they can eliminate jobs and give themselves bonuses.

      They are excited the way a farmer is excited when his pigs are gorging themselves on grain and getting really, really fat. The farmer is glad to pay for grain because its much cheaper than the money he makes from selling them for meat.

      They are giddy because its almost time for payday.

      • MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip
        12·
        8 hours ago

        payroll, which is generally a businesses highest expense

        This is something that changed in the industry; it was a investment back then.

        • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
          36·
          7 hours ago

          Huh, it’s been an operating expense since, let me check, the dawn of business?

          “Investing in” your employees doesn’t make a ton of sense when they could just hop over to the next company after a year, much like loyalty in a company doesn’t make sense. It’s all a business transaction in the end so if you can get a better deal, you should.

          The unfulfilled promise of AI is to reduce the expense to a minimum so the few remaining people can accomplish the same work. That’s more of an investment than paying people to work for you until they find a better job ever was. In theory.

          • 0tan0d@lemmy.world
            8·
            5 hours ago

            Hi I suggest you crack open a history book and look at why ford didn’t pay his employees in peanuts.

            • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
              11·
              2 hours ago

              To solve the turnover issue, sure. It’s not like the employees had that many other places to go to that could afford to do the same, he could just double or triple everyone’s salary and nobody’s going anywhere. It was a necessary business expense. EXPENSE. He could’ve made more money if he didn’t have to pay it. Similarly to the raw materials, electricity, and every other unavoidable business expense.

              It’s also not the same for software engineers, for an example. Too many companies hiring, or at least there used to be until a few years ago. You have to not just pay a lot of money, you also have to have a large bonus 3 or 4 years down the line, often in the form of stock options. Otherwise your engineer making 300k will just take the next job for 400k in half a year to a year.

              In normal companies that can’t afford bonuses that are more or less life-changing windfalls, there’s no “investing” in employees. You can pay the market rate for a new grad and they disappear in a year or two to another company that doesn’t take new grads at all but rather poaches employees once they’ve gotten some initial work experience and thus they waste less money than the companies hiring and training juniors and can afford to pay more. The company that doesn’t “invest” in employees, gets more bang for its buck.

              • wholookshere@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                1·
                2 hours ago

                He could’ve made more money if he didn’t have to pay it. Similarly to the raw materials, electricity, and every other unavoidable business expense.

                Citation needed with data. Because I’d argue pay on the factory is also proportional to quality output. So would they have still made the money with a worse product?

          • Jiral@lemmy.org
            3·
            1 hour ago

            I know, US style capitalism doesn’t put much value in it but loyal employees can be a win for a company, but you only get them if the companies are rewarding that loyalty. The cost of having disposable employees is often extremely high. In the worst case not only a lot of informal knowledge and skill is lost but sooner or later it will end up with the competition, no matter the clauses in the contract.

      • Pyr@lemmy.ca
        22·
        12 hours ago

        I wonder at what point government will tax AI use by companies similarly to payroll taxes and incomes taxes.

        If they pay an AI company $150,000 a month to replace $50,000 in salaries, the government then loses all that income tax from the previous employees as well as the payroll tax on $600k a year.

      • 1984@lemmy.today
        21·
        13 hours ago

        At some point capitalism will fail but it will take much longer than we think…

        • xtr0n@sh.itjust.works
          25·
          21 hours ago

          Total cost of employment is something like 140-160% of salary for a software dev. So my super handwavy half pulled out of my ass math puts it closer to 20 jr. engineers.

          • fibojoly@sh.itjust.works
            8·
            10 hours ago

            In France it’s more like 200%. minimum. Which is why our salaries are so shit when compared with US ones.

            But the new trend is hiring interns which are much cheaper, work twice as hard, and come with tax deductions.

            • Omgpwnies@lemmy.worldEnglish
              3·
              3 hours ago

              US salaries in general are inflated and not entirely indicative of actual spending power. They have a lot more ancillary costs like healthcare and other insurances, not to mention a significant lack of public transport means most people also need to pay for a car and gas and whatnot.

              Add to that the fact that they get fuck all for vacation time meaning if they want time off, it costs their salary for the missed days. I think when you weigh it all out, it balances pretty evenly, if not somewhat in France’s favour.

    • DreamButt@lemmy.worldEnglish
      111·
      21 hours ago

      I meeeean yeah, but also there are just some people who don’t work out

      I do prefer that over bots on everything tho. It’s getting rather exhausting

  • zewm@lemmy.world
    772·
    22 hours ago

    Is the face AI morphed or something? It looks uncanny valley weird.

  • Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.worldEnglish
    71·
    21 hours ago

    Exactly. Managers live in a golden age right now where social media automatically blames their fuckups on AI.