It is a capitalism issue.

But it's also a free speech issue. You're conflating free speech and the First Amendment, but they are not the same thing, and matters of free speech do not begin and end with the First Amendment.

CEOs represent their companies. "The company didn't say it, the CEO did" is a nonsensical distinction.

>they're doing sales and marketing and it's you that interprets this as possible/true.

You've moved the goalpost from "they're not saying it" to "they're saying, but you're not supposed to believe it."

The companies are not doing it. This is what I am saying.

You admitted earlier that they are:

Person you replied to: they intentionally use suggestive language that leads people to think AI is approaching human cognition. This helps with hype, investment, and PR.

Your response: As do all companies in the world. If you want to buy a hammer, the company will sell it as the best hammer in the world. It's the norm.

Corporations are motivated by profit, not doing what's best for humanity. If you need an example of "large organizations conspiring against us," I can give you twenty.

I agree that sometimes organisations conspire against people. My point was, in case it wasn't apparent, the irony that somenameforme was talking about how LLMs were of little use because they hallucinate, whilst apparently hallucinating a conspiracy by AI companies to overhype the technology.

I wasn't making a political point. You see similar evidence-free allegations against international organisations and national government bodies.

You're being disingenuous. The tweet was talking about asserting the existence of fake articles, claiming that a paper was written in one year while summarizing a paper that explicitly says it was written in another, and severe hallucinations. Nowhere does she even imply that she's looking for superintelligence.

The productivity benefits of remote work options have been resoundingly proven by now. This person doesn't truly care about maximizing productivity.

If it has it's across a population and says nothing about the individuals working for the boss above. It's still up to managers to, well, you know... manage.

They have to evaluate their employees and people who aren't doing well working remotely may require closer management, may lose their wfh benefits, or something else.

Holding yourself to a different (lower) standard than your employees is not the mark of a fair person.

I never said that. I only said as the boss I make the rules. Perhaps I work and commute more, or less, than my charges.

Your workers are not less valuable than you. You should treat them better.

You're imagining things. I never said who works more at home or in the office. Or who has longer commutes.

That would be horrible for workers. Let's not establish that sort of precedent; if you do the job, remote or not, you get paid equally. Even assuming a slight productivity bump, John doesn't deserve more money than Dave just because he schleps himself to the office.

I disagree with that. If I do the job twice as well as someone else (twice as productive) I would expect to be paid twice as much.

Because managers likely prefer it due to corporate peacocking. The article clearly says this.

The article asserts it, yes, with not a single quantitative study actually supporting that. They have some tangentially related evidence around real estate and survey responses, and they assert - again, without direct evidence - that these are explained by corporate peacocking.

But perhaps corporate peacocking is not why they prefer it?

I like a day's worth of face time once a week or so. It's not because I like to show off to my colleagues or minions - most of my direct colleagues are not in the same country as me. I prefer it just because I'm the sort of person who prefers a little, but not a lot, of direct human contact when given the choice.

The managers get given the choice and may just prefer it innately. It's irritating that they elect to inflict it on others if it's not economically rational to do so.

"likely" as in vibes? Or is there actual backing evidence?