If it served no purpose then it wouldn't be done. Companies don't throw resources around for no reason. The article mentions that cooling servers with water is cheaper than cooling them with air conditioners, for example. If they were using air conditioners they'd be wasting money. If you really don't want them to use water because water is scarce in a particular location then make sure the water is priced appropriately and they'll switch.
The bit about salespeople using LLMs doesn't mention anything about inflating sales numbers or using LLM hype. It says:
Salespeople are apparently celebrating tools for automatically generating proposals for clients. If a salesperson's job were to communicate with and identify the needs of a client, then this wouldn't make sense, but a salesperson's job is to sell as much of a thing as possible. It is to bloat and clutter our world. Of course the people whose job it is to create bloat are excited about being able to create bloat faster.
In other words, they're just using LLMs to increase their productivity. They can do more of the same thing they're already doing by making use of them. The article labels "selling stuff" as "bloat" too. This is why I'm of the opinion that the author is really just using "bloat" to mean "stuff I don't like" at this point in the article, how is selling stuff an "excessive usage of resources"? If they're increasing their productivity then that means they're using fewer resources to sell a given amount of stuff, not more.
Ok, let me put it this way, it is not serving the purpose as intended by the accepted system.
The theory in economics by which the market and private companies are justified is that they will compete and produce products and fractionalizing quality in regards to cost, there by maximizing utility.
The problem is that most of their actual decisions are no longer moderated by this logic. they are moderated by systems of internal corporate dynamics, monopoly, and rent seeking.
There is a purpose to their actions, but it is not to maximize utility. It is to maximize the amount of resources and influence that a corporate structure controls.
Perhaps that is maximizing utility for the corporate structure, but it violates what I feel is the social contract; something to the effect of “groups are issued the status of limited liability, there by becoming firms or companies, by the public on the understanding that the set of rules they operate with in will maximize utility for the public.”
Ergo, from my perspective, it is useless, because it is serving the interest of an artificial construct and not the public at large.
If it served no purpose then it wouldn't be done. Companies don't throw resources around for no reason
I'm guessing the point is that it's diminishing returns and maybe a solution looking for a problem. Like how companies often spend a bunch of money/resources on special effects just for the spectacle of it. Just because they spent all that money doesn't mean it is worthy of doing so in the first place.
Their point on sales is similar, it's not that they're selling something but that they're selling something that people don't need. Like fast fashion, it's manipulation and the only purpose is money. You can look good without following a trend, and looking good (or status) should not be the only point of purchasing something anyway.
If it served no purpose then it wouldn't be done. Companies don't throw resources around for no reason. The article mentions that cooling servers with water is cheaper than cooling them with air conditioners, for example. If they were using air conditioners they'd be wasting money. If you really don't want them to use water because water is scarce in a particular location then make sure the water is priced appropriately and they'll switch.
The bit about salespeople using LLMs doesn't mention anything about inflating sales numbers or using LLM hype. It says:
In other words, they're just using LLMs to increase their productivity. They can do more of the same thing they're already doing by making use of them. The article labels "selling stuff" as "bloat" too. This is why I'm of the opinion that the author is really just using "bloat" to mean "stuff I don't like" at this point in the article, how is selling stuff an "excessive usage of resources"? If they're increasing their productivity then that means they're using fewer resources to sell a given amount of stuff, not more.
Ok, let me put it this way, it is not serving the purpose as intended by the accepted system.
The theory in economics by which the market and private companies are justified is that they will compete and produce products and fractionalizing quality in regards to cost, there by maximizing utility.
The problem is that most of their actual decisions are no longer moderated by this logic. they are moderated by systems of internal corporate dynamics, monopoly, and rent seeking.
There is a purpose to their actions, but it is not to maximize utility. It is to maximize the amount of resources and influence that a corporate structure controls.
Perhaps that is maximizing utility for the corporate structure, but it violates what I feel is the social contract; something to the effect of “groups are issued the status of limited liability, there by becoming firms or companies, by the public on the understanding that the set of rules they operate with in will maximize utility for the public.”
Ergo, from my perspective, it is useless, because it is serving the interest of an artificial construct and not the public at large.
I'm guessing the point is that it's diminishing returns and maybe a solution looking for a problem. Like how companies often spend a bunch of money/resources on special effects just for the spectacle of it. Just because they spent all that money doesn't mean it is worthy of doing so in the first place.
Their point on sales is similar, it's not that they're selling something but that they're selling something that people don't need. Like fast fashion, it's manipulation and the only purpose is money. You can look good without following a trend, and looking good (or status) should not be the only point of purchasing something anyway.