Sure, but if you have a staff of 10000, you're doing this 10000 times. Unless you share that in a common place, and now you're re-inventing the thing we're claiming not to need.
9,454 karma · joined December 9, 2014
But, then, people did this for digital editing before. Insisted there were "clear signs of photoshop", from people who never opened that app.
Well, sure, there's no one left to fight once everyone already lost their job and moved to another career. But, that's sort of a "might makes right" resolution. The workers don't have the political sway needed to get the government to intervene.
Businesses succeed in getting that sort of market intervention all the time. Most of the modern changes to copyright law are driven by business lobbying.
People have processes they go through to eventually get to something reasonably correct. Systems for drawing people, perspective rules, etc. These get extremely elaborate. They shouldn't need any of it if they could fully visualize the scene. They'd just need to copy that image to paper.
You'll hear people say things like "trust the process". They are struggling with what they're drawing looking wrong to them, until they're fairly far along and the shapes are fairly complete. Even when they're doing things correctly, their brain isn't recognizing it.
Doing art teaches you that you only have a general sense of what a lot of objects look like. People need reference for almost everything they haven't drawn before, and can struggle to understand the proportions of things they're directly looking at.
That there are no billboard ads for personal injury lawyers, clearly doesn't imply injury lawsuits aren't occurring.
I see ads for some local pizza places, as they've learned that can work for a delivery business, but most restaurants have no ads. They don't know of anything that works.
You can see this not working in existing products. Alexa could book a flight for you in 2018. I've never heard of anyone using that feature. Travel planning can be extremely complex, so it's challenging to make people trust a tool is going to do the right thing.
Also, I know this is picky, but your mascot should not feel like it'd feature in a list of worst Olympic mascots.
I don't think any single form of advertising is effective on the whole population.
But if "decision-making rights are unclear" is listed, it seems unlikely those people were the problem.
If by AI we mean LLMs, the question looks a bit different.
No, the problem is, no one will need the CEO. They'll press the button on their own.
There have been a number of games that have tried AI conversations, but you're basically trying to sell a Chat GPT prompt, and many players are aware they don't have to pay you to get a similar result on their own.
The data people know this, the executives do not. Or rather, they choose to ignore it, because they prefer metrics be as simple as possible.
They even try to reduce numeric values to boolean ones. When you get asked on a survey to rate from "Very Unsatisfied" to "Very Satisfied", they often reduce that to a percentage count of people who answered the top 1 or 2 boxes.
I worked at a medical company where the CEO was very enthused with the idea of having large thumbs up and down buttons at the front desk, right in front of the staff. What worked for convincing him this was a bad idea was a story about staff at a retail store panicking because a child started banging on the thumbs down button. Customers got an email with thumbs up and down instead.
If you tell every manager they need to show some sort of success with AI, you get a lot of projects that don't make sense, which then quietly die, and the process repeats.
Most human CEOs are disqualified then. Whenever I join a company these days, they stress how important the company's values are, and they are somehow basically the same as every other company.
Mostly yes, there's not much extra they can deliver besides a better staff to customer ratio.