[kelnos]

That shouldn't really be surprising at all. And in some cases I'm not even sure it's a bad thing.

Not sure what level of management/responsibility this guy was at, but if we wasn't executive level, he probably stands to personally benefit more from engaging in these sorts of shenanigans than if he were to do the thing that's best for the company.

And really, in that situation, why should anyone feel ethically bound to be efficient and do what's best for the company? It's not like the company cares about you. If it's "efficient and best for the company" to kick you to the curb, the company will do that. Why should the rank-and-file show loyalty?

The company executives almost certainly have it in their power to set incentives so doing the most efficient, best-for-the-company thing is what's going to give each employee the biggest reward. If they're not doing that, that's their problem.

But on a higher level, where we have a big societal problem that needs to be fixed, I would agree that optimizing for your own profit, at the expense of solving that problem, is selfish and immoral. I just don't think it's worth any hand-wringing at a low-level company-inefficiency level.

[concordDance]

> And really, in that situation, why should anyone feel ethically bound to be efficient and do what's best for the company?

They should do what is best for society. Companies with lower parasite load operate more efficiently, allowing higher production of goods and services for lower price, leading to a wealthier society.

> The company executives almost certainly have it in their power to set incentives so doing the most efficient, best-for-the-company thing is what's going to give each employee the biggest reward.

They do not. This is a ridiculously hard unsolved problem. The alignment problem may actually be the hardest problem we have.

[lucianbr]

> Companies with lower parasite load operate more efficiently, allowing higher production of goods and services for lower price, leading to a wealthier society.

This may be true. But I think it would be wise to consider an alternative:

Companies with lower parasite load operate more efficiently, allowing higher extraction of wealth from society at large to the owners and leaders of the company, leading to a more unequal and poorer society.

Probably not all companies are in the second way, but to think all are in the first way sounds naive to me.

> The alignment problem may actually be the hardest problem we have.

Hah, reading this makes me think you already understand that your assertion about companies operating efficiently is false. Yet you wrote it...

[concordDance]

> Companies with lower parasite load operate more efficiently, allowing higher extraction of wealth from society at large to the owners and leaders of the company, leading to a more unequal and poorer society.

Only in a non-competitive environment where there are substantial barriers to entry. While this may describe many corporations I suspect it describes very few tech companies (Meta, Alphabet, Amazon and a dozen others perhaps).

> Hah, reading this makes me think you already understand that your assertion about companies operating efficiently is false.

I don't recall saying they operate efficiently.

[hx8]

If we take the story at face value I think this is unethical and antisocial behavior. The person was dishonest, claiming to be working on a problem but actually was avoiding the best solution. The person was wasting resources, taking significantly more time and money than what is required to do the job. By wasting them on nothing-work we are robbing the actually big and important problems from access to those resources.