You click a button on Microsoft Teams and hire “Bob” who joins your team org, gets an account like any other employee, interacts over email, chat, video calls, joins meetings, can use all your software in whatever state it’s currently in.
It has to be a brownfield solution because most of the world is brownfield.
Big enough corps will eventually have their own trusted 'Bobs' just like they have their own massive cluster farms (no, AWS et al is not a panacea and its far from cheap&good solution).
Giving any form of access to some remote code into internal network of a company? Opsec guys would never ack that, there is and always will be malice coming from potentially all angles.
Solarwinds.
Local agent machines for cloud CI/CD pipelines.
Devs using npm and pypi and such.
To be a bit reductive, `apt-get update` or equivalent.
Exactly. The problem with the AGI-changes-everything argument is that it indirectly requires "plug-and-play" quality AGI to happen before / at the same time as specialized AGI. (Otherwise, specialized AGI will be adopted first)
I can't think of a single instance in which a polished, fully-integrated-with-everything version of a new technology has existed before a capable but specialized one.
E.g. computers, cell phones, etc.
And if anyone points at the "G" and says "That means we aren't talking about specialized in any way," then you start seeing the technological unlikeliness of the dominoes falling as they'd need to for AGI fast ramp.
their CEO was a believer of making his departments compete for resources leading to a brutal, dysfunctional clusterfuck. rent seeking behavior on the inside as well as outside.
These orgs could hire someone who could solve these issues right now (and for the last decade) if they would allow those people to exist in their org.
The challenge is precisely that those people (or people with that capability) aren’t allowed to exist.
There's an argument here something like.. if you can replace each role with an AI, you can replace multiple with a single AI, why not replace the structure with a single person?
And the answer is typically that someone has deemed it significant and necessary that decision-making in this scenario be distributed.
Better hope that coder doesn’t decide to just take all the money and run to a non extradition jurisdiction though, or the credentials to that DB get leaked.
Just look at names. Firstname, lastname? Jejeje, no.
Treating them as constants? laughs in married woman.
If you can absolutely, 100% cast iron guarantee that one identity field exactly identifies one living person (never more, never less), these problems are trivial.
If not? Then its complexity might be beyond the grasp of the average DOGE agent (who, coincidentally, are males in their early 20s with names conforming to a basic Anglo schema).
And that's just the NAME field.
I'm not sure what personal characteristics or capabilities you're referring to, FWIW.
Most of those orgs have people in key positions (or are structurally setup in such a way) that isn’t desirable to change these things.