[romanovcode]

As a contractor who built a lot of predictive systems and workflows in last three years I can tell you that quite often there is a specific request to put AI into it even when it is not needed and would objectively make the system worse, slower and more expensive.

The AI psychosis is a real thing.

[KellyCriterion]

Haha, i have a colleague, he is the "AI-is-for-everything-let-me-check-Claude-first":

Regardless which task is handed to him, he "discusses" it first with Claude and very often comes back with like "The AI said... X"

[Philip-J-Fry]

I have one too. He'll say "Claude says this:" and pastes a screenshot of some Claude Code output. Most of the time it's wrong, or makes assumptions that won't hold true. Or it comes up with some overcomplicated solution and I'm like "This is like a 10 line change, right here".

These people just destroy their ability to read and understand the systems they're working with. I actually see it as them making themselves redundant. Because if you can't understand anything without Claude, and Claude doesn't even give the right answers, then what are you worth?

[KellyCriterion]

...and now think about Claude being shutdown by the gov... :-D

[anal_reactor]

I talk to Claude because I'm very talkative but I have nobody to talk to.

[pjmlp]

I keep seeing requests to replace what would be a perfect UNIX shell script with agents, like what is the benefit other than being able to say we're doing AI?

[cwnyth]

Where I work, management hasn't considered integrating AI at all, yet some clients are very vocal about it being the future and worry we are going to be left behind. Most people just don't care, and I worry the squeaky wheel will eventually get the grease.

[nutjob2]

> worry we are going to be left behind.

I bet lemmings are grateful they were left behind.

It beggars belief that people think that they should rush in some uncertain direction, like some drawbridge is going to be lifted the moment people work out what the right direction is. It's utter stupidity.

[inigyou]

Every single person who bootstrapped becoming powerful did it by rushing into things, but it's a high variance strategy because you could also end up destitute

[ezst]

Maybe it should have clicked earlier in life and I'm perhaps that much dumb dumb, but it only recently occurred to me (from experiencing it at two very different companies and discussing with peers having reached a certain seniority level more or less at the same time) how dysfunctional many companies are, and how often they produce incentives that are misaligned with the overall company goals and sustainability principles. I blame in large part a layer of middle management that selfishly puts itself above all else, misguides, misrepresents, because it essentially pays larger dividends (literally and not) to "play the networking game than to be an efficient and effective productive structure". Maybe that's to be expected in a services-driven economy where the value of the work is immaterial and subjective (and the whole phenomenon of bullshit jobs).

[QuantumNomad_]

So then, do you put AI into it anyway because they asked for it, or do you tell them that you won’t do that?

[romanovcode]

> you tell them that you won’t do that?

Of course I will do that, I get paid for doing that.

Most of the times I can convince that AI is not necessary by showing small PoC flow with AWS diagrams of data flows. This works well especially if the ask comes from technical people.

Other times the C-level interjects (CEO, CFO, sometimes even CTO) and demands that AI should be there. I literally had CEOs send me instagram reels of some AI shovel-sellers to demonstrate that I am wrong and AI is the way to go. No point arguing after that because I have no problem implementing whatever AI they want rather than losing a paying project.

[nik282000]

Use 'AI' to create anti-AI reels showing how much they suck at all tasks. Spam CEO's underlings.

[pwndByDeath]

I'm sorry, David, I'm afraid I can't do that.