Comment by symfoniq
1 day ago
There is a complete lack of courage in the leadership of tech companies today, and top-down AI mandates are just another manifestation.
True visionaries think outside the box, but most tech executives are forcing their employees into black boxes, out of fear of not doing exactly what their competitors are doing.
We have lemmings for leaders, and that means that—much like the LLMs that are being shoehorned into everything—there isn’t room for original thinking. Everyone’s strategy looks exactly the same.
I'm going to offer a contrarian view here:
First is that despite a lot of waste, some innovation will arise from an enterprising employee finding some interesting use case. A lot of the tokenmaxxing is just waste, but out of that waste may arise a small number of genuinely powerful use cases.
Second is that many workers will be entrenched in their ways. If your executive goal is to achieve the above (find innovative ways of using AI), then you need to move everyone to use it. Most will just waste tokens, but someone may find a novel and useful way of using it that benefits the organization. It is difficult to achieve these without forcing people to act since their default is to follow the well-worn grooves.
So mandates like these are a top-down forcing function like a slime mold feeling out different paths to find resources.
Some devs in my org have fully embraced AI; some would not even use AI if not for leadership mandates and linking usage to performance reviews (I know, I think this is stupid, too). I can see why mandates could be useful since some folks definitely won't be inclined to use AI.
> but out of that waste may arise a small number of genuinely powerful use cases.
Imagine you employ me as a hotel manager, and I come to you and say: "sure I spent all our food budget internationally in three months, and sure I have nothing really to show for it, but for those three months, we had a lot of food fights"
Your manager then goes on to explain they not only need more money to cover the food budget, but also they need to quituple the cleaning budget too.
Oh and the service level has dropped, because not all clients liked being in the middle of a food fight.
However "we might have some innovation in the food delivery system of our hotel chain"
This is really relative to the size of that innovation, isn't it?
This is exactly how startups and VC funding works, isn't it? You have an idea, give you cash to burn to prove the idea and business model. Many teams and ideas fail. But some small number of unicorns produce outsized returns to keep the whole thing going.
1 reply →
Imagine you employ me as a hotel manager, and I come to you and say: "sure I spent all our food budget internationally in three months, but we invented this new dish and now our restaurant is the hottest in town. Sure 95% of the food was wasted but now we can stop the waste and keep the popular dish."
2 replies →
> some innovation will arise
Absolutely, but most management are not leaders, the moment someone pushes the idea to stack rank based on token usage, it gets approved and some genuine people will be impacted.
Post-ZIRP era proved there are very few strong leaders, before that everyone was behaving like they're most amazing leader because they read some books and raised $10M
Sure, indiscriminate tokenmaxxing is a gamble that can pay off sometimes. However, I think that the decision to take any gamble should be made by someone who will bear responsibility for the downside as well as the upside. I would prefer to search for new usages in a more strategic way. I agree that experimentation is a great way to learn if done intelligently and with limits. Full “Monte Carlo” makes sense when ops are cheap enough. It seems some orgs don’t think tokens are cheap enough yet.
I think this is very, very hard for orgs to do.
Looking back at the Internet, who would have thought that it would eventually create a Netflix, Amazon, Shopify, Spotify, Google Maps, etc. Just wild the things that ended up coming out of pushing bits over a wire with few simple protocols.
In an ideal world, you make strategic bets, but I can also see the case for the opposite this early in the lifecycle of a technology. You just don't know until you try.
Mid/late 2023, it wasn't at all obvious that it would take over coding that fast.
3 replies →
> Some devs in my org have fully embraced AI; some would not even use AI
So if the people who embrace AI areore successful then the others will follow. Just like every other new tech. Why does AI have to be forced? What's the hurry? Especially when there's no clear example of a company jumping ahead because of their use of it.
It's idiots being driven by FUD. That's the reason.
There are definitely key windows here for innovation driven by competition.
There's also a need to quickly adopt and understand the technology; take the Internet for example. If we were talking about the Internet, forcing teams to build and publish web pages would be one valid way to get teams comfortable with the tech, the workflow, the shift in how to propagate and convey information to an audience.
Without a mandate, many teams won't adopt the Internet as a medium of information exchange because their processes work just fine and have worked for the last 20 years.
I think it's fair to put AI in a similar light. Unless teams adopt it and use it, it's hard for an org to understand how to get value out of this technology and how it affects existing processes and assumptions.
5 replies →
Seriously. No mandates at my company. In 2023 and 2024 i had access to Claude, but frankly it wasn't until 2025 that i found the models useful enough, now i use them every day. Nobody forced me. Had they forced me, I'd probably have quit. Once the tools were sufficiently mature and verifiably helpful, people like me all over the company naturally picked up the tools too.
> A lot of the tokenmaxxing is just waste, but out of that waste may arise a small number of genuinely powerful use cases
A lot of monkeys will also eventually type up Shakespeare?
Indeed, but that's not a bad thing. If monkeys can produce the next Shakespeare, that will be wildly popular and profitable for the company that did it, justifying the initial waste, just as VC does with companies as a whole.
There was an amusing post about judging developers based on token usage where some user on HN here was pushing this idea “ICs don’t like it but this is the best way to evaluate” (something like that).
They have a whole management team and can’t seem to find a way to judge or god forbid encourage developers…
Problem is in management, management usually comes up non-sense metric when they themselves lack of good metric.
For example, everyone talks about strategy, but when you ask them what's our strategy answer is usually something like:
* let's figure out together
* industry changing is so fast, we should revisit plans every quarter
...
Because the higher up you go in management, the more "strategy" is a Plato's Cave like interpretation of what better/bigger/whatever competitors are doing.
Ha. Exactly at my current contract job.
"Welcome to the new contractor who will be the artitect our new infrastructure. What is your dream IT setup?"
"Yeah, we can't afford that. Lets revisit once you wrangle those 2003 Dell R620's running Windows 2008 with no patching."
And that is why after eight months i'm terminating my contract on Friday and swimming back to shore.
I don't get why it's so hard for management to see the good devs. All the devs know who are the good devs.
And they know things like “Dude isn’t a high performer metrics wise but his work is solid.” Arguably some of the most difficult things to know from a management perspective.
> Everyone’s strategy looks exactly the same.
If one is a CxO who's looking out for one's job security, herd-like behavior is the safest option, due to the (near universal) structure of "performance"-based executive remuneration.
Is keeping your company private the easiest way to get around this?
It should not be overlooked that a lot of this fervor is from investors/board members putting pressure on these companies.
Lacking not just courage, but also character. Wasting company money on buzzwords and dubious outcomes is lack of character.
"True visionaries think outside the box,"
I mean that's more of an ex-post statement.
Ex-ante they look at things as objects and visualise/simulate what one ought to do independently, as opposed to being a lemming.
Yeah courage will get you fired. Whether it be about idiot product decisions, or about how your bosses treat your coworkers. That’s the consequence of letting sociopaths get in charge.