"ai powered map" why the fuck would I want that?

Redmond, WA had the people that built Windows. The ones that wrecked it, I presume came from Silicon Valley.

Sure AI can help people learn the basics and get prototypes going, but if that mapping tool is made for anything beyond entertainment I wouldn't touch it with a 3-metre pole.

She talked about Copilot 365. And Microsoft AI. And every miserable AI tool she's forced to use at work. My product barely featured. Her reaction wasn't about me at all. It was about her entire environment.

Bro should ask a coal miner what they think about their bbq grill next time.

The author of this article is literally the Principal Skinner meme

I'm pretty sure that a lot of people outside Seattle, also hates AI...

Yeah if AI was actually good you wouldn't need to mandate it. No one was like "everyone here must use Google search".

So, the people in companies pushing and making this AI slop treat it like toxic waste, and the author thinks that they're the problem?

I suddenly want to look at his AI map thingy and see how bad it is.

This whole article is just a condescending mess.

"Why does everyone who has been repeatedly burned by AI, time and time again, whether that be through usable software becoming crammed full of useless AI features, AI making all the information they get less reliable, or just having to hear people evangelize about AI all day, not want to use my AI-based app that takes all the fun out of deciding where you go on your vacation???"

(yes, that is actually the entire proposed app. A thing where you say where you're going, and it generates an itinerary. Its only selling point over just using ChatGPT directly is that it makes sure the coordinates of each thing are within realistic travel restrictions. That's it.)

I didn't fully grok how tone deaf I was being though.

WTF does this mean???

This reads like someone who wants to write on linked in but couldn't even be taken seriously there.

This author was sooo close to get it

I don't think she's wrong. Treating Generative AI LLM'S as an innovation and studying it to see what it can do and how it can benefit a business makes as much sense as with any other innovation.

Pretending it is the panacea to all that ails every company in spite of the rot it's actually directly causing is the problem, but the solution isn't to change the way we implement AI.

It's fruit of the poison tree at this point. You're asking someone who's already been burned by the fire that's been let to rage out of control to build a smaller more manageable fire, and expecting them to just overcome a fear response because the fire hasn't burned you personally.

I didn't fully grok how tone deaf I was being though.

It's nice to see grok being used in the Heinlein sense and not the Musk sense. The article tracks with my experience, anyway. People who use AI how they choose are generally seeing a return. People who are forced to use it to do things it can't do... hate it.

Yes we do!