Honestly, why not have AI CEO's? I'm sure an AI agent could do better than Tim Cook and solve problems a lot quicker. It would save companies tens of millions of dollars versus going after the joe blows making $60k a year.

Half kidding but half not.

AI football coaches.

TXTransplant said:

---

AI football coaches.

---

What we need are AI refs. They could absolutely do this job better RIGHT NOW.

northeastag said:

---

Watching the golf course behind my house getting completely reconstructed. Nothing but big mountains of dirt being shoved around.

And getting ready to remodel the guest bathroom next week. Gutting and re-installation of everything.

I get it that AI can whip out a marketing presentation lickity split, but it's just hard to imagine it pulling this other stuff off.

---

I can absolutely see AI redesigning that golf course. All that really is image generation in a physical medium. I had it redesign our yard last week and it spit out first try what I was envisioning.

All you have to do is feed it images of golf courses the world over with some criteria for each hole and it will generate a plan for you. Throw in robotic equipment which already exists and boom AI is redoing your golf course.

I can see that one happening pretty soon, actually.

At minimum, the AI is going to end up being the foreman or GC and humans will handle the grunt work. They'll be saying "yes sir" to Siri.

It will be interesting to see what kind of new laws and regulations pop up and what turns out to be sacred cows.

For example, maybe you use AI to design a new backyard, but to get a permit in your city/town, you still have to have an actual person with a license sign off on the plans.

Or with the coach example, the NCAA or NFL passes rules that in order to compete, you have to have human coaches on the field. No computer assisted play calling during the game.

TXTransplant said:

---

It will be interesting to see what kind of new laws and regulations pop up and what turns out to be sacred cows.

For example, maybe you use AI to design a new backyard, but to get a permit in your city/town, you still have to have an actual person with a license sign off on the plans.

Or with the coach example, the NCAA or NFL passes rules that in order to compete, you have to have human coaches on the field. No computer assisted play calling during the game.

---

Yeah, I bet this becomes a controversy here pretty soon because someone will do it. Considering how much analytics is now a crutch for coaching decisions in football games, teams would be dumb not to already be using it to bolster their analytics they already run. Then it becomes a matter of how real-time are these analytics which is where AI would step in.

Makes the Astros sign stealing scandal look like a big nothing.

Another thought I just had (in part because CoPilot was just rolled out to all of us at my company this week) is companies looking at how often you use it as a "measure" of how "well" or "efficiently" you do your job.

I just got it this week, so it remains to be seen how much CoPilot will help me. But I already know I use other specialized, job specific tools that are AI driven to assist me with a lot of my work. So I don't need CoPilot for those things (unless those tools are taken away).

But I could totally see a scenario where IT provides a report to your manager telling them how often you access CoPilot and having to explain why you don't use it more. Companies have sunk a lot of money into this and been convinced that there isn't anything CoPilot can't do better than a human, and they are going to expect employees to use it.

Frankly, now that I think about it, I'm surprised CoPilot use didn't come up as a KPI for me to measure and track as part of my objectives.

MRB10 said:

---

I'm have a family member on staff at one of the teams. The NFL prohibits them from having AI assisting in real-time play calling or decision-making.

They have a relationship with Microsoft which is why you see the surface tablets on the sideline. They use AI to help with some play filtering and other operational things.

---

The Cowboys need to cheat like hell here.

TXTransplant said:

---

Serious question - I'm an engineer but not a computer person. My background is chemistry and a little biology.

But in biology, it's known that the more times a cell replicates, the more likely there is to be an error in that replication. As those errors propagate, you end up with mutations that manifest as things like cancer. This is really the heart of what we know as aging and why a lot of diseases are age related.

What's keeping the same thing from happening with digital data? We know data becomes corrupted over time. Computer systems don't last forever.

It's fundamentally the Second Law of Thermodynamics - entropy (disorder) is constantly increasing.

The miracle of human life is that two unique individuals come together to create more completely unique individuals. And we tend to do it when we are young (ie, less errors with replication).

But how does an AI program do this? Won't its data eventually become too corrupt to use causing it to effectively "die"?

---

data governance.

TXTransplant said:

---

It will be interesting to see what kind of new laws and regulations pop up and what turns out to be sacred cows.

For example, maybe you use AI to design a new backyard, but to get a permit in your city/town, you still have to have an actual person with a license sign off on the plans.

Or with the coach example, the NCAA or NFL passes rules that in order to compete, you have to have human coaches on the field. No computer assisted play calling during the game.

---

Play calling is a very tiny piece of what coaches do, and even then the difference between coaches
Is closer to a game of paper rock scissors than some high level 3D chess that AI is going to break thru to some higher plane of existence in play calling

I can see AI having a huge role in drug development, genetics, protein folding..etc

You don't have to convince me of that. I don't believe AI and robots are going to eliminate the need for humans doing all work. At least not in my lifetime, and probably not several lifetimes after that.

But if you had AI that could analyze every game that a team plays, and then use that information to determine the "perfect next play" in a game (based on a fact pattern), seems like AI could do an even better job than a human coach!

AI excels when there is a whole lot of data to analyze. And we have become data hoarders, so it's a necessity. But i don't think you can just jumble all that data up together and expect a generic AI tool to sort it all out and give you a good result. There will have to be different AI tools for different applications. And that seems like somewhat of a limitation to me. Also makes it more expensive to develop (lots of custom models/applications with limited use).

Coaches have the same data that AI would gather from film but coaches also have in game data from on the field player input. Such as, coach i can beat so and so because of whatever.

But ultimately you're guessing what the other guy is doing, and the other coach is guessing what you're doing like paper rock scissors.

The ultimate game is to outman the other team at the point of attack. That can be the play, paper beats rock or you gotta a guy who can physically beat there guy


Now AI could be a great time savor for coaches working 70 hrs a week in preparing all the stats. Perhaps coaches can spend time elsewhere, reduce staff...etc. Coaches also spend significant time trying to reduce what needs to be practiced, to let players play and less thinking. Perhaps AI could assist there too

In the end though the vast majority of coaching has nothing to do with play selection

Oh and bagger - the purpose of an ERP platform is not to centralize data. It's intended to manage a workflow that is considered auditable and trustable. They're frequently attached to the companies money and it's used for reporting results.

I guess I don't really know what that means. If you were to ask me why we have an ERP system for I wouldn't say anything about having auditable workflows. Maybe I am doing that and I don't realize it.

I would probably describe our purpose closer to Google's answer to "what is an ERP?"

a system of software which is designed to manage all the information and activities of a company by using shared data

I'm in commercial construction..

I just don't see our projects happening without boots on the ground and people at computers to support the whole thing. Let alone face to face meetings with developers, engineers, architects, and the general contractor (who I work for)

Sure maybe AI can take my job.. but I will be done or about retired when it happens. My company is small, private, and old school.. and it's worked for 60 years that way.

Not to change the focus of this thread but has TAMU done anything from a course and major selection in response to the anticipated impact to specific job markets?

Key part is last sentence. "Activities" like payment processing and GL updates.

TXTransplant said:

---

You don't have to convince me of that. I don't believe AI and robots are going to eliminate the need for humans doing all work. At least not in my lifetime, and probably not several lifetimes after that.

But if you had AI that could analyze every game that a team plays, and then use that information to determine the "perfect next play" in a game (based on a fact pattern), seems like AI could do an even better job than a human coach!

AI excels when there is a whole lot of data to analyze. And we have become data hoarders, so it's a necessity. But i don't think you can just jumble all that data up together and expect a generic AI tool to sort it all out and give you a good result. There will have to be different AI tools for different applications. And that seems like somewhat of a limitation to me. Also makes it more expensive to develop (lots of custom models/applications with limited use).

---

That removes all the fun. If every team was eventually just running the most logical next play based on all of the available data, you lose the amateurish arbitrage of one coaching being a step ahead of the other. Or once coach running a play to throw off the scent.

I don't want sports run by robots. I would probably quit watching.

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

You don't have to convince me of that. I don't believe AI and robots are going to eliminate the need for humans doing all work. At least not in my lifetime, and probably not several lifetimes after that.

But if you had AI that could analyze every game that a team plays, and then use that information to determine the "perfect next play" in a game (based on a fact pattern), seems like AI could do an even better job than a human coach!

AI excels when there is a whole lot of data to analyze. And we have become data hoarders, so it's a necessity. But i don't think you can just jumble all that data up together and expect a generic AI tool to sort it all out and give you a good result. There will have to be different AI tools for different applications. And that seems like somewhat of a limitation to me. Also makes it more expensive to develop (lots of custom models/applications with limited use).

---

That removes all the fun. If every team was eventually just running the most logical next play based on all of the available data, you lose the amateurish arbitrage of one coaching being a step ahead of the other. Or once coach running a play to throw off the scent.

I don't want sports run by robots. I would probably quit watching.

---

If we have AI coaching, why not AI players? Superhuman bots dunking on 25 ft goals or hitting 1000 yd homers off a 250 mph fastball. Or why have a physical game at all? Hyperrealistic CGI competitions played out in VR systems. Your team can win every game now!

I don't want any of that, but it's interesting to think about.

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

You don't have to convince me of that. I don't believe AI and robots are going to eliminate the need for humans doing all work. At least not in my lifetime, and probably not several lifetimes after that.

But if you had AI that could analyze every game that a team plays, and then use that information to determine the "perfect next play" in a game (based on a fact pattern), seems like AI could do an even better job than a human coach!

AI excels when there is a whole lot of data to analyze. And we have become data hoarders, so it's a necessity. But i don't think you can just jumble all that data up together and expect a generic AI tool to sort it all out and give you a good result. There will have to be different AI tools for different applications. And that seems like somewhat of a limitation to me. Also makes it more expensive to develop (lots of custom models/applications with limited use).

---

That removes all the fun. If every team was eventually just running the most logical next play based on all of the available data, you lose the amateurish arbitrage of one coaching being a step ahead of the other. Or once coach running a play to throw off the scent.

I don't want sports run by robots. I would probably quit watching.

---

You'll never lose paper rock scissors in "games". Its fundamental. No AI will ever read minds, or the mind of another AI in games of chance

That's exactly where I was going with my premise (in my head), I just didn't mention the AI robot players.

But if some people have the hypothesis that AI is going to take over everything and humans won't need to do anything that's exactly what sports sounds like it will be to me. It will just be a live (or robot) version of a video game.

Same with movies/TV - every one will look like the Dunkin and Ritz cracker Super Bowl commercials.

It's not what I want, either, but I'm not naive enough to think my opinion counts for anything. The NIL has done a lot to ruin college football but that's not stopping the powers that be.

The more I think about it, the more I think the near-term implementation of this is, to an extent, gonna depend on what humans (or the humans in power) decide they are willing to tolerate when it comes to AI. And what the government (via lobbyists) will step in and label as "sacred cows" - meaning ban AI for certain uses.

Another serious question - is there any serious/organized talk on having companies report their carbon footprint inclusive of the use of AI data centers?

I work in an industry that's constantly talking about ways to reduce carbon emissions and strategizing around "what ifs" regarding a carbon tax. But that's all around our industrial processes.

AI does have a carbon footprint. Is anyone hearing anything about how that's going to be accounted for? Are any companies doing "what ifs" in the event they are asked to report it as part of their own emissions?

Seems like one way to throttle this would be via a carbon tax. Companies would have to start looking at how much of their AI usage is for truly value-added output vs generating text mundane emails that people are capable of composing themselves.

It will not but you can have one clown sorting it into the piles then let the AI rip it. You get rid of the bulk of the team members.

The next step is you will actually see your work load triple because the AI is not really that good. You see, the person overseeing or writing the code has never done what you do.

In the end, you will be treated as if you should be grateful you were the one clown we chosed to keep and triple the work for same or less pay is the least you can do to show your appreciation and buy in.

Tax professionals have proven to be very good at lobbying against changes that would be good for consumers. I think this will be more of the same. Making a law that says "it's illegal for AI to do your taxes" or something like that.

I think anything that's government-adjacent is going to be slow to adopt for that reason.

Quote:

---

1. The Core Fears and Predictions
Mass Obsolescence: There were widespread predictions that automation and computers would render many human roles redundant.
White-Collar Panic: Unlike previous industrial revolutions that affected manual laborers, the computer revolution triggered fears among white-collar workers that their jobs (e.g., secretaries, researchers) would be automated.
"Destroyer of Jobs": In the early 1980s, popular media often portrayed computers as "giant brains" that would eliminate workers without consideration of the human cost.
Permanent Unemployment: Some economists, such as Wassily Leontief in 1983, argued that unlike earlier machines that replaced muscle, computers reduced the need for human brainpower, threatening to make unemployment permanent.

---

From the 70's when computers started to become mainstream.

Mantiki_jr_29 said:

---

It will not but you can have one clown sorting it into the piles then let the AI rip it. You get rid of the bulk of the team members.

The next step is you will actually see your work load triple because the AI is not really that good. You see, the person overseeing or writing the code has never done what you do.

In the end, you will be treated as if you should be grateful you were the one clown we chosed to keep and triple the work for same or less pay is the least you can do to show your appreciation and buy in.

---

Reality will be something like this for a lot of companies, but I think you're missing the real fundamental change.

In the beginning you couldn't use a computer unless you knew how to use punch cards.

Writing code was 10x easier than using punch cards.

Then using software was 10x easier than writing code.

Where we are now is that the burden of knowing how to use software is going away. You don't need to know how to make pivot tables in Excel. You have a conversational interface, so you don't need to know how to use software, you just need to know how to talk to the AI. Learning to talk to an AI is 10x easier than learning how to use the software.

So if it's true that you don't need to know how to use the software to get the benefits, the current limitation is on what software exists. The only software that exists is where there's the right combination of critical mass for a use case, a developer who can/wants to create it, and a company that wants to market it to you. In these cases what you're saying is absolutely right. The person writing the code hasn't done what you do, and they're also not designing it for you. They're designing some version of a one-size-fits-all solution.

What's coming is that the person "writing the code" WILL have done what you do - because YOU will be the one writing the code. If it was true that there was a custom software application that was designed and written by someone who had done your exact job, had your exact customer base, was your exact size, had your exact same number of employees, your exact same tech stack, etc. it would probably be pretty damn good.

That capability is coming on soon. Telling an AI what you want is 1000x easier than writing a custom software application.

HECUBUS said:

---

Quote:

---

1. The Core Fears and Predictions
Mass Obsolescence: There were widespread predictions that automation and computers would render many human roles redundant.
White-Collar Panic: Unlike previous industrial revolutions that affected manual laborers, the computer revolution triggered fears among white-collar workers that their jobs (e.g., secretaries, researchers) would be automated.
"Destroyer of Jobs": In the early 1980s, popular media often portrayed computers as "giant brains" that would eliminate workers without consideration of the human cost.
Permanent Unemployment: Some economists, such as Wassily Leontief in 1983, argued that unlike earlier machines that replaced muscle, computers reduced the need for human brainpower, threatening to make unemployment permanent.

---

From the 70's when computers started to become mainstream.

---

Up to this point in history every technological revolution has created MORE jobs, not less.

This one might be different, but it also might not.

Humanity has a good track record of finding new excuses to trade money with each other.