top 97 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [S] 274 points 9 months ago (33 children)

Instead of looking for other avenues for growth, though, PwC found that executives are worried about falling behind by not leaning into AI enough.

These are the people in charge of the economy.

  • source
  • hideshow 33 child comments
  • [–] 149 points 9 months ago (14 children)

    TIL the economy is driven by FOMO.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 104 points 9 months ago (9 children)
  • [–] 38 points 9 months ago (8 children)

    Feels like it kicked into hyper-drive after Bitcoin blew up

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 9 months ago* (4 children)

    You never lived through the dotcom bubble.

    Or tulip mania

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Or the gourd futures thing, maybe?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago* (2 children)

    I do like to think I could have made money on that one and will always regret avoiding it. It was clearly always a bubble with nothing behind it (less than the current ai bubble), but at the same time was a huge long shot.

    Like any bubble, you can make money if you’re in early enough but it’s absolutely critical to get out in time before everything comes crashing down. I try to avoid speculation bubbles because I’m not good at getting out in time. But for the bitcoin craze, I think it was much clearer than other bubbles. There was a clear transition where all the faithful were gone and it was pure speculation finance bros. Clearly it had jumped the shark but there was still opportunity to get out of the water

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    If it makes you feel any better, I was an early adopter, mined 36 bitcoins, got bored, heard years later that bitcoin was "a thing" now and never found my wallet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    There is an incredible amount of incompetance in executive class America. The shit floats to the top, and after decades of ass kissing they get appointed CEO. It's just one get rich quick scheme after another. 2008 everyone invested in the Hah-vud algorithm for free money in debt derivatives without anyone validating the algorithm, and 17 years later, same shit with A1.

    These clowns are all hot boxing their own farts on Linkedin.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 58 points 9 months ago (8 children)

    "Falling behind" is such a bullshit phrase.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 32 points 9 months ago* (5 children)

    Specifically this context. Like "falling behind in school," I get. There are grades. Some people do better while some fall behind. It's a scaler value with a good end and a bad end.

    But the AI bros are co-opting the phrase and presupposing that ALL OF TECHNOLOGY is on a linear scale where the good end is more AI shit and the bad end is less AI shit. They're using a scaler when they should be using a vector.

    I've mentioned it before on here, but my cousin is taking an AI class in college. He tried to convince my business-owner uncle to let him create an agent for his company's website so he won't "fall behind."

    My uncle owns a gas station.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    While it's felt so keenly now, it has always been a part of tech. Some amazing stuff comes out, and thus everything most be amazing and you can't afford to miss out.

    In practice, if the tech is truly that great, then you can catch up real quick after waiting to understand if it is great. But everyone FOMOs constantly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago

    I think it's different this time around. Tech pundits might write "If Apple doesn't have a VR/AR product in the next six months, they're falling behind," but this is the first time in my memory that it's been tech companies staring down consumers and small businesses and saying "If you don't adapt to this technology, you will lose your job."

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    I think that definition of "falling behind" is exactly the FOMO that the tech giants want to sell to all the other companies.

    I think the FOMO of the tech CEOs is the same as it ever was. Money. In this case it's "What if the magic thing that makes AI dominate the economy happens and I am not leading the pack at just that moment? I might not become one of the first trillionaires! 😭"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 47 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    It's the "sunk cost fallacy". They've already invested so much, that turning back now means a total loss...when success "might be" just around the corner, if they only invest a little more. In for a penny, in for a pound.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

    The mentality of the gambler. There's a lot of people out there who have this addiction and just aren't fortunate enough to have lucked into becoming a CEO. That's how you know it's a lottery, and being born into riches is a shortcut.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Not just sunk cost, they see all this apparent press, writers, business leaders saying they have fantastic results, so obviously they most be doing something wrong.

    I have seen it over and over again in tech. People are told that everyone else in the world is doing great with some tech and everyone is so afraid they are "not getting" something they won't say anything or else they will pretend they also "get it" and it is awesome.

    Not even things that have marketing spend behind it, some programming paradigm or whatever. Marketing spend makes it worse, but all by ourselves everyone seems to be afraid to somehow be seen as a clueless Luddite at any second.

    It's really weird when you attend some talk where the guy talks up sonething or another and then in more casual private conversation basically admits straight up that he actually doesn't see the benefit, but feels like he has to dance the dance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    It's crazy how being a "leader" in tech just means latching on to the whatever the latest trend is while kissing maximum ass.

    Almost none of these tech companies have their own vision anymore, they just mindlessly copy whatever FAANG or the current trendy startup does.

    Just dealt with this forward deployed engineer bullshit created by Palantir. My company spent six months "exploring" this concept that makes absolutely no sense for us because we already have an established product with thousands of customers... And it took them that long to figure this out. But hey Palantir did it and they're the trendy guys right now, so we should try it too so we can also be cool.

    Not related to AI but we're in fully brainwashed mode on that too.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 96 points 9 months ago (17 children)

    Tech CEOs are a cancer on society and the planet. Ruining everything just to make fake numbers go higher.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    Tech CEOs are a cancer on society and the planet. Ruining everything just to make fake numbers go higher.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (3 children)

    The alternative is running everything by committee, which isn't always practical.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (2 children)

    You can have a single person in charge without them having the title "CEO".

    Making your title CEO is also basically accepting a lot of the cultural baggage that comes with the term.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 9 months ago

    It's sad how few of you have taken the time to research or attempt to start a business. Of any sort.

    People aren't evil for selling a service and registering it as a corporation which often requires a CFO and a CEO/President, even if the business has only a couple people. A lot of these businesses struggle financially just as much as any welfare recipient.

    Do you think the only people who aren't evil are the non-industrious? It comes across as pathetic parasitic envy.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (10 children)

    I hope we find a way to cure it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 9 months ago* (8 children)

    Luigi found a pretty good solution.

    But, all jokes aside, the best solution is to start taxing these fuckers as hard as possible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (6 children)

    What we really need is to speedrun evolution, and reach the next step sooner, where greed is no longer a factor and things are more globalistic, etc. You know, something sensible. Otherwise, it's just a cycle that repeats, even with people like Luigi appearing every now and then, and society cheering them on. The next cycle is behind the corner, at any time. We have to break the cycle with radical changes to human behavior and motivations in general.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    Evolutionary changes take millennia to happen. Even if you speed run things it will still be centuries before there's a change. You could try to manually curate genetic changes, but we've tried that, it was called Eugenics and led to Nazis.

    What we really need to do is accept that humans are still animals, and have all kinds of flaws due to our animal natures. We need to come up with ways of accepting and working with our animal natures. Males are inevitably going to try to do things to attract female attention so that they can "mate". So, maybe try to make it so that the things that work are taking care of needy people, rather than driving a big pickup truck or shooting a gun. Or, in the case of CEOs, accumulating absurd amounts of money.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    When we have the potential to reach post-scarcity, scarcity will become artificial solely for the purpose of wielding influence or expressing power.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 174 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Rich people: Debunking the idea that the rich are the smartest since about 10,000 BCE.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 83 points 9 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 23 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    And a granny state to bail them out if they lose all their money at the casino.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    This metaphor made me laugh and cry at the same time. Granny state indeed. I remember seeing those old folks in Vegas and being horrified about that future. My fear created an entire economy out of that old person at the slot machine stereotype.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 62 points 9 months ago (17 children)

    I'm starting to think that most "business" leaders have the skills of a Trump. It's all puffery.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 54 points 9 months ago (8 children)

    Have you ever talked to a CEO? Like, sit down and talk face to face? Their are dumb as rocks. They are dumb as rocks and make all the money, and just move around from company to company, running them into the ground.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago

    Yes. My last 3 were excellent businessmen and treated employees exceptionally well.

    The one before that was a buffoon, but that was a tiny 13-person company. Our main vendor said, "He's a man who has found great success despite himself."

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (3 children)
    • some exceptions for CEOs that actually founded the company they remain in charge of, but they're in the minority for sure. There's probably variance by sector as well.
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    All CEOs need to be [redacted]

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Maybe I'm just too close to the non-profit side of things to see it as a simple binary.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    "Non-profit" is a tax classification, not a description of their business motives. I'm not saying that all non-profits are bad. They definitely help people. But many are absolutely profit-driven, with their CEOs making a shitload of money. CEOs, by and large, profit off the exploited labor of their employees.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 9 months ago

    During americas “great” years a lot of the research and development was guided by long term USA policy. We are no longer guided by any sense of what’s to come. It’s a greedy grab all free-for-all. No rules no restrictions, just have fun and make lots of money.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    If trump can graduate with a IVY league degree, that says a lot about the (trogolydite) IVY league grads.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    We said the same thing about bush! Clearly they lost their luster damn near a century ago.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 56 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Those who advocate for AI the most are the ones who understand it the least.

    CEOs aren't in the positions they hold because they're qualified to lead corporations. They're there solely to figure out the best way to exploit workers legally, and illegally without getting caught. Replacing the workforce with LLMs is all they care about. Makes that job a million times easier, even if it isn't working.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 9 months ago*

    An anecdote in agreement:

    The CEO of my company left in September 2025. For years leading up to that, there were 3-4 layoffs/riffs of approx. 5% reductions (edit: yearly reductions). Never hired more US employees except for VP and C-level until we became very top-heavy. What jobs they do replace are primarily India and some in Argentina, many are contractors. They "cook the books" by avoiding taxes and "creatively" avoiding reporting gains/losses due to having a large amount of contractors. 2025 ended up losing a ton of customers due to churn (i.e. leaving or not renewing contracts). Most of our customera are US or North America-based and the contractor teams have such high turnover that customers are sick of us not supporting them well anymore.

    Know where that former CEO is now? An AI startup.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago

    Well a CEO sees something that just generates a wall of text without soul and a tenuous connection to facts, but overwhelmingly confident? As good as the typical CEO then so must be good at everything.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 51 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    The next big thing is NI: natural intelligence! Replace you hallucinating AI with a person that can solve problems without hallucinating (usually)!

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 9 months ago* (2 children)

    Ah man I can’t wait for the advertising to pick up on this.

    “Has AI crapped the bed again? Here at “local store” we have genuine authentic humans to interact with”

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    A car dealership here has started running podcast ads to that effect. Kinda rides the line between "we're your local car dealer" and "we're actually people".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago

    Where I’m at there’s a bank running adds along the lines of:

    Other banks: (nerdy boring voice) “we could start an investment plan into thiscoin or thatcoin,… (list of puns on bitcoins)”

    Our bank: (normal voice)“So how’s it been? What can I do for you today?”

    Love it

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 40 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Oh geez no one could have known that.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Instead of looking for other avenues for growth, though, PwC found that executives are worried about falling behind by not leaning into AI enough.

    “A small group of companies are already turning AI into measurable financial returns, whilst many others are still struggling to move beyond pilots,” said PwC global chairman Mohamed Kande in a statement. “That gap is starting to show up in confidence and competitiveness, and it will widen quickly for those that don’t act.”

    PwC also pointed out that most companies were lacking the “AI foundations, such as clearly defined road maps and sufficient levels of investment” to realize a return.

    And I imagine the only reason I'm drowning is that I didn't bring enough gallons of their energy drink into the sea with me. Wow.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    A small group of companies are already turning AI into measurable financial returns

    Who, other than companies selling AI to other companies?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    Who, other than companies selling AI to other companies?

    I'm sure that's what they're talking about.

    I haven't seen any company selling end users AI at any price that looks like it could actually turn a profit.

    It feels so very bubble.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    You can’t usually replace people with AI per se, but there is a lot of routine work you can do more efficiently with the help of AI. And that in the end reduces needed staff.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago*

    A surprising percentage of that routine work that can be machine assisted is already automated. Even an agentic AI LLM doesn't do anything a clever bash script couldn't. (And bash does it without hallucinations.)

    So the opportunity is that a we can automate things that were not worth automating, before.

    But the challenge is that anything with crazy good returns on efficiency is likely to already have been automated better.

    So we have a really expensive tool hunting for huge efficiency gains among the scraps leftover from earlier better automation solutions.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    13 comments in c/technology@lemmy.ml view that post
    10 comments in c/technology@piefed.social view that post