Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by loeg 25 days ago
The business. Employees are hesitant to learn new tools that are very different from what they are used to, so if your business believes that AI is a productivity multiplier, it behooves it to incentivize individual employees to learn to use the tool.
2 comments
tquinn35 25 days ago
I think the key word is “believes”. There is no proof that AI usage improves productivity. Token maxing is essentially customers paying to try and prove a business’s unsubstantiated claim. The AI companies should be proving their claims themselves not the other way around.

I do think AI has value and is useful but the idea of token maxing is ridiculous.

link
loeg 25 days ago
Sure; I described it that way deliberately. I think you can reasonably disagree with whether or not AI improves efficiency, but regardless, you can agree that if a business believes AI does, it will logically conclude that it should incentivize employees to learn to use AI.
link
bigstrat2003 25 days ago
> Employees are hesitant to learn new tools that are very different from what they are used to...

That simply isn't true for technical employees (like software devs). They are so hungry to get stuff done that you have to hold them back from adopting new tools which they think can make them work more effectively. Tech guys will set up entire shadow IT departments just to get around corporate restrictions that are limiting their productivity.

No, if software devs are not using LLMs for programming, that is proof that the tool isn't actually useful for them. It doesn't mean "they need to be forced to use it", because they didn't need to be forced to use any of the tools which came before it.

link
loeg 23 days ago
I disagree with you on both counts.

> [Technical employees] are so hungry to get stuff done that you have to hold them back from adopting new tools

Technical employees are also hesitant to waste time learning new tools if their existing tools do the job. Maybe juniors are more hungry to spend time on new tools that might not pay off. But seniors aren't burning time trying out the new flavor-of-the-week tool.

> if software devs are not using LLMs for programming, that is proof that the tool isn't actually useful for them

No. It's evidence that they perceive that the tool won't be useful to them, or don't think learning it will be worth the effort expended, or that they won't enjoy using it. These are different things than the tool being useful or not.

link