Where's The Backup?

Again, thanks to the day's Financial Times for the spur that goaded the night's post from this tired old brain. A piece in 'Work & Careers' on agentic AI, defined by Wikipedia as: '... [In the context of generative artificial intelligence,] ... AI agents (also referred to as compound AI systems or agentic AI) are a class of intelligent agents distinguished by their ability to operate autonomously in complex environments. Agentic AI tools prioritize decision-making over content creation and do not require continuous oversight.', points out that more companies are talking up this technology than are actually currently adopting it, with 'business leaders' [what a misnomer that term is] waffling on about strategies for its deployment and exploitation, despite little to zero experience of it; described in the article as akin to '...trying to teach your kid how to ride a bike, but you've never ridden one...' .

Which just about sums up the "professional" business leader to a tee: soaking up the latest buzz words from advisors, consultants and motivators who know equally jack shit about the "products" they're touting for a not inconsiderable fee. The not-knowing leading the not-seeing for pecuniary gain completely unrelated to outcome. The kinds of fiddly, detailed and repetitive workflows that these people envisage agentic AI replacing humans with, includes the kind of routine maintenance that oils the wheels of most work environments, and in the right managerial hands, this kind of technology can really make a difference to the workplace, easing the nuts and bolts stuff away from over-worked and usually over-stressed staff. However, the calibre of the management structures involved in deploying such technologies is usually pretty woeful and the now omnipresent line-management hierarchies lend themselves to not much beyond empty business platitudes, the aforementioned buzz words, and worthless qualifications such as the appalling Harvard MBA. All of which reminds me yet again, that business should not be left in the hands of "businessmen" - [they are almost always men in this context] - divorced from actuality by dint of their complete lack of any real insight into or knowledge of the daily grind of actual business.

I'm always minded of the blind imposition of the word processor on the Civil Service, which effectively decimated the typing pool as an essential cog of the service's daily process: when "managers" saw that they could type their own letters, rather than leave the task to trained typists, they not only removed an entire layer of employment - and "cost", ultimately shedding jobs in their wake, but they burdened themselves with extra work otherwise better and more efficiently hitherto carried out by others, and to a much lower standard. The upshot is: when the shit hits the fan and things break and there's no-one left with the skills to pick up the pieces, where do you go from there? If your AI agent is no longer functional and you have laid off all of your humans with actual real-world skills and experience, you are actually stuffed. There's a very big difference between winging it from a position of improvisational nous based on experience and native intelligence, and winging it from a starting point of complete ignorance informed only by the venal ignorance of corporations and consultants. Caveat emptor...