[neilv]

Pre-AI version: Oops, you laid off the higher-salaried people without having them train their replacements, so bring them back, long enough to do that.

Now, that training[*] will be for both AI models and lower-salaried hires.

Perhaps a second mistake by those who thought they didn't need their most experienced people: Now they think they just need to train the AI better, and then new-grad "AI native" hires will be the most cost-effective way to operate/oversee the AI and do whatever it can't.

[*] edit: originally typed "replacement" when I meant to type "training"

[teiferer]

Is there any substantial number of companies actually training AI? Or do you count writing skills files for Claude as "training"? (Cause it really isn't..)

[boutell]

We all know what you mean. But doing what is necessary to make the overall automated system more autonomous = training, at this 30,000 foot altitude.

[teiferer]

Well for grandma on the street I can accept that, but shouldn't at least the tech community be more precise in terminology? "AI" is also a misnomer. So many things in our industry are that it always takes some layers of digging in a new area to understand what they actually mean because the words have shifted their meaning.

[neilv]

I intended for the entire sentence to be in terms of the thinking of top leadership.

And to gloss over how that improvement would actually happen. (Not knowing what they've currently done and want to do, but for example, guessing: probably in partnership with vendors, consultants, etc., iterative and experimental process and tools improvements, and involving a variety of approaches and refinements.)

[Chaosvex]

Ray tracing says hello.