Hmmm the Brendas I know look a little different.
“There are two Brendas - their job is to make spreadsheets in the Finance department. Well, not quite - they add the months and categories to empty spreadsheets, then they ask the other departments to fill in their sales numbers every month so it can be presented to management.
“The two Brendas don’t seem to talk, otherwise they would realize that they’re both asking everyone for the same information, twice. And they’re so focused on their little spreadsheet worlds that neither sees enough of the bigger picture to say, ‘Wait… couldn’t we just automate this so we don’t need to do this song and dance every month? Then we wouldn’t need two people in different parts of the company compiling the same data manually.’
“But that’s not what Brenda was hired for. She’s a spreadsheet person, not a process fixer. She just makes the spreadsheets.”
We need fewer Brendas, and more people who can automate away the need for them.
Co-pilot and AI has been shoved at the Microsoft Stack in my org for months. Most of the features were disabled or hopelessly bad. It’s cheaper for Microsoft to push this junk and claim they’re doing something, it’s going to improve their stock far more than not doing it, even though it’s basically useless currently.
Another issue is that my org disallows AI transcription bots. It’s a legit security risk if you have some random process recording confidential info because the person was too busy to attend the meeting and take notes themselves. Or possibly they just shirk off the meetings and have AI sit in.
Transcription is arguably one of the must useful enterprise AI tools avaliable. But i sure as heck wouldn't trust the cloud with it.
This reminds me of a friend whose company ran a daily perl script that committed every financial transaction of the day to a database. Without the script, the company could literally make no money irrespectively of sales because this database was one piece in a complex system for payment processor interoperability.
The script ran in a machine located at the corner of a cubicle and only one employee had the admin password. Nobody but a handful of people knew of the machine's existence, certainly not anyone in middle management and above. The script could only be updated by an admin.
Copilot may be good, but sure as hell doesn't know that admin password.
If your mission critical process sits on some on-site box that no-one knows about, copilot being good or not is the least of your problems.
An old colleague and friend used to print out a 30 page perl script he wrote to do almost exactly this in this scenario. A stapled copy could always be found on his dining room table.
This sort of gimmick is not going to help anyone keeping their job.
Sadly, nah. It works.
This quote is pulled from a TikTok, I recommend watching the whole thing here: https://www.tiktok.com/@belligerentbarbies/video/75683800086...
(I pulled the quote by using yt-dlp to grab the MP4 and then running that through MacWhisper to generate a transcript.)
It's a little over two paragraphs. Seems like it would have been simpler just to... type it out?
Where's the fun in that? :D
10 billion dollars is probably going to be spent on automating excel, it’s going to happen
Brenda has been getting slower over the years -as we all have-, but soon the boss will learn that it was a small price to pay for knowing well how to keep such house of cards from collapsing.
And then the boss will make the decision to outsource her job, to a company that promises the use of AI to make finance better, and faster, and while Brenda is in the unemployment line, someone else thousands of miles away is celebrating a new job
Let it all crash and burn
At some point, a publicly-listed company will go bankrupt due to some catastrophic AI-induced fuck-up. This is a massive reputational risk for AI platforms, because ego-defensive behaviour guarantees that the people involved will make as much noise as they can about how it's all the AI's fault.
That will never happen, AI cannot be allowed to fail, so we'll be paying for that AI bail-out.
Do you really want these kind of companies to succeed? Let them burn tbh
I don't find comments along the lines of 'those people over there are bad' to be interesting, especially when I agree with them. My comment is about why it'll go wrong for them.
Make sure you’re not part of the kindling, then.
I'm actually not that worried about this, because again I would classify this as a problem that already exists. There are already idiots in senior management who pass off bullshit and screw things up. There are natural mechanisms to cope with this, primarily in business reputation - if you're one of those idiots who does this people very quickly start just discounting what you're saying, they might not know how you're wrong, but they learn very quickly to discount what you're saying because they know you can't be trusted to self-check.
I'm not saying that this can't happen and it's not bad. Take a look at nudge theory - the UK government created an entire department and spent enormous amounts of time and money on what they thought was a free lunch - that they could just "nudge" people into doing the things they wanted. So rather than actually solving difficult problems the uk government embarked on decades of pseudo-intellectual self agrandizement. The entire basis of that decades long debacle was based on bullshit data and fake studies. We didn't need AI to fuck it up, we managed it perfectly well by ourselves.
Nay-sayers need to decide whether they fear AI because AI is dumb and will fuckup or because AI is smart and will take over.
Both are valid concerns, no need to decide. Take the USA: They are currently lead by a patently dumb president who fucks up the global economy, and at the same time they are powerful enough to do so!
For a more serious example, consider the Paperclip Problem[0] for a very smart system that destroys the world due to very dumb behaviour.
[0]: https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/ai-and-paperclip-problem
Simon willson is definitely not a nay sayer.