Tom Fishburne | marketoonist.com
Transcript
-
A man sitting at his computer tells a woman A.I. TURNS THIS SINGLE BULLET POINT INTO A LONG EMAIL I CAN PRETEND I WROTE.
-
A woman sitting at her computer tells a man A.I. MAKES A SINGLE BULLET POINT OUT OF THIS LONG EMAIL I CAN PRETEND I READ.
You must log in or # to comment.
The truly hilarious thing in this scenario is that the bullet point he wrote and the bullet point she gets will be completely different. Their communication will be literally lost in translation.
And they’ll claim productivity was increased on both ends
Reminds me an economics joke about eating shit raising the GDP.
The one chat goes something like this?
Two economists are walking through a farm. One tells the other “hey if you eat some of that shit on the ground I’ll give you $100”. So the second guy does it, and the first one hands over the $100. A few minutes later they pass more shit, and the second guy says to the first guy “if you eat some of that shit I’ll give you $100 too”, so the second guy does it and gets his $100. After a while, the first guy says “wait, did we just eat shit for nothing? No one made any money” and the second guy replied “of course not, we added $200 to the GDP!”
Shit must be good! A million flies can’t be wrong.
Oh geez, early on in my current career I sent a one-paragraph project report, because it had been very little work and not complex.
My then manager loved his buzzwords and long pointless meetings, he told me my report wasn’t adequate even though it had all the relevant info.
So, I just added a pile of extra bullshit that didn’t say anything at all. And that fucker loved it.
I went and found another job soon afterwards.
That’ll be ten thousand dollars and your water supply please
cash or card?
The question is: the bullet point written and the bullet point read will differ.
Most of the time yes. But sometimes no. Only way to know for sure is to read the original point.
Only way to know for sure is to read the original point.
well, no, you could also implement something like a checksum …
A checksum requires an exact match down to the character. It can still be accurate without being a character for character match.
It all comes down to communication theory…
that’s the neat part - it’s completely unknowable
And the end bullet point is also wrong!
So was the long list.
It’s like that game were you whisper into one persons ear and they pass in on. By the end the message is completely different.
that has literally happened for billions of years, it’s called evolution
Why did I read this as “piss in it”?
Maybe that helps with understandability even… 🤔
Except the telephone is just the LLM where you tell the LLM something and it regurgitates some BS.
It’s like file compression, but the other way round.
noisserpmoc
And it’s not lossless.
Management loves AI because management’s job is to write emails and reports, not to actually communicate meaningful information.
The inverted compression algorithm
*inverted lossy compression
Is that the in to out method?
It inflates text and the economy at the same time!
Normalise terse and succinct communication and life will be less fucking stupid. The problem does not reside in the tool but in our garbage culture of waste.
the problem isn’t the verbose reports but the requirement of management that something needs to be done, which comes from the requirement that people earn a living wage in this economy. we need UBI
“Please run the formatter so the checks pass on the PR” is a perfectly fine and polite statement. Some people act like they’re being attacked.
Decoder Encoder architecture
And the one bullet point that comes out was not the one bullet point the original person put in!
So is that what they call “garbage in, garbage out”?
If a job can be done by AI it’s probably a bullshit job.
I predicted this 6 years ago. It’s automating corpo email ceremonies. Now all we need is to turn this into a chat app for this.
![AI Written, AI Read [Tom Fishburne]](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/871b3649-f026-4a04-b02b-b95aa435edfa.webp){kind=link}