> "Nvidia isn't alone, as tech giants have taken measures to push employees to incorporate more AI into their day-to-day work. Both Microsoft and Meta plan to evaluate employees based on their AI usage, and Google told engineers to use AI for coding, Business Insider reported. Amazon was in talks to adopt the AI coding assistant Cursor after employees requested it…"
My company also told us they are tracking how much we use AI and how much we use it will be factored into our yearly performance reviews.
francisofascii 73 days ago [-]
It is interesting because plenty of organizations ban the use of AI in many situations. One client I work for blocks Copilot in VSCode when on their VPN.
Lapsa 72 days ago [-]
"after employees requested it…" riiiiiight...
cratermoon 73 days ago [-]
If AI were actually any good programmers would have to sneak it in the backdoor,
without the knowledge of management and their "approved software",
like we do with almost any tool we find that really works.
Lapsa 72 days ago [-]
well said
cratermoon 71 days ago [-]
Thank you. I've been telling people that for a while now.
The best tools rarely (never?) come from top executives down to the hands-on-keyboards people.
The programmers are the ones in the best position to determine what will help them do their jobs,
and frequently those tools are not on the approved lists because they are new and haven't (yet) made it to the Gartner "Magic Quadrant".
jqpabc123 73 days ago [-]
Anyone with half a brain knows that AI is unreliable. It can and will make mistakes.
Who gets the blame for this?
It's like insisting that managers hire unreliable people because they're cheaper --- but the managers know they will pay the price for doing so.
zcw100 73 days ago [-]
Ha! When was the last time anyone took the blame for crappy code? This is an industry with zero accountability for quality. Fail fast right? At least when I tell an LLM it's wrong it says, "You're absolutely right" and gets to fixing it rather than an hour lecture about why they're totally correct and justified because of their version of "best practices".
jqpabc123 73 days ago [-]
LLMs are being used for a lot more than code generation.
thegrim33 73 days ago [-]
Well the point is the manager gets the praise/promotion/etc for reducing costs and supposedly improving performance, and then they bounce and leave the company, moving on to the next place, before the long term effects can be evaluated.
lux-lux-lux 73 days ago [-]
> Who gets the blame for this?
The computer, which cannot be held accountable. See how that works?
cjbenedikt 73 days ago [-]
Hmmm...he almost comes across as desperate. Wonder why...
solsane 72 days ago [-]
Title is a bit off, for those who care about the distinction.
> Nvidia has some managers who are telling their people to use less AI
73 days ago [-]
windows2020 73 days ago [-]
Makes sense an 'AI' chip maker would say that.
73 days ago [-]
64718283661 73 days ago [-]
I would never install these ai tools on my computer. It's going to immediately scan and upload my source code. Why would I want them to steal my code? Nothing good can come from that.
stalfosknight 73 days ago [-]
Why must executives be so fucking obnoxious about shoving AI into every possible orifice?
chillingeffect 73 days ago [-]
>And if AI does not work for a specific task, "use it until it does," he added.
davesque 73 days ago [-]
Because there's a lot of money in it.
Lapsa 72 days ago [-]
executives doing heavy dick measuring on who's using more AI - winner gets the contract and dough
Rendered at 06:22:39 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
My company also told us they are tracking how much we use AI and how much we use it will be factored into our yearly performance reviews.
Who gets the blame for this?
It's like insisting that managers hire unreliable people because they're cheaper --- but the managers know they will pay the price for doing so.
The computer, which cannot be held accountable. See how that works?
> Nvidia has some managers who are telling their people to use less AI