fugalfervor

I get it now. You're one of the robots! That's a pretty good bit.

I work at Microsoft and my team's a bunch of harmless dorks and weirdos that I like very much. YMMV but perhaps the unfavorable decisions you have formed about a small subset of Microsoft employees should not be extended to the full 223,000 workers employed there.

Not really. I'm thinking that robots have limited capactiy to help with community, maintaining mental acuity, and strength training which as I understand it are the three most predictive factors in quality-of-life outcomes for the elderly.

I'm not saying that robots can't help care for them, but rather that the proposed uses of robotics are optimizing for problems that are ultimately not the most important problems to those nearing death.

I am saying that people don't want elder care and community automated away. Businesses surely do. The elderly surely do not.

How exactly is building a robot to take out the trash "robot care for the elderly"? Any chore done by humans -- including but not limited to the elderly -- that can be automated by a robot is considered "robot care for the elderly"?

If that is what the above poster meant, they should have stated it more clearly because it did not come through.

I've never thought of it like that, but I can't think of a counterexample.

You should say this out loud to the people in your life who have kids!

No, lots of people do not feel similar. You may also be out of touch.

Slack built into and accepted by the system does not mean that you can surgically remove that slack and not have wide-ranging negative side-effects.

What a limited understanding of how tangled systems operate.

A simplistic understanding that posits to explain everythin, but understands little.

A thought-terminating cliche, if you will.

It's also a very simplisic understanding and an identifier of someone falling victim to the Dunning-Krueger effect.

Microsoft employees (developers) were told during an internal keynote that we need to be more judicious about using AI because it is expensive, makes some tasks take longer, and there is no evidence supporting increased productivity.

Overinvestment in AI.

As mentioned elsewhere, my org is asking us to reduce usage because it is expensive and there's no evidence it improves productivity.

If that's happening at [redacted] of all places, I think it's reasonable to think that the technology may not be as transformative as predicted due to its (currently) poor performance in generating revenue.

We're profiting from its inefficiency by selling compute to other companies, especially AI startups. It's expensive and unprofitable for them and a cash cow for us. The position we're taking is bearish and somewhat more reversible than that taken by Meta, for example.