Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
You can and should. You're describing sunk cost fallacy, which is pretty close to universally understood as a terrible money vacuum of a flaw in our reasoning. (I would have made this comment if I hadn't read Quit literally yesterday, but it really is an excellent book about the value of abandoning bad decisions when new information makes it clear that they're bad decisions.) Buying time and raising expectations with a dead end nonsense tech might be better 6 months from now, but 5 years from now, being the guy that saw the writing on the wall that the continued investment was lighting money on fire will leave you better off.
LLMs have limited applications, and will in the future, but nowhere near enough to warrant the obscene amount of resource burn companies are spending to get there.
Corporations, sure, but tech? Anti-tech people aren't early adopters of new tech products. Early adopters are just generally more aware of the actual shape of the field than people jumping on hype trains once they've already started moving.
So firstly, if you were the person running a several million dollar project which then gets cancelled, you are absolutely getting fired. If you were acting entirely in your own self interest, it would be better to make the project last as long as you can. Maybe it ends up succeding by a fluke and you keep your job?
Secondly, you're assuming that all that money just vanishes when the product is released. The product is still out there in the market, and there are still some people will buy it. If you're 80% of the way through the project, it might be worth spending the remaining 20% in order to recoup at least some of your costs.
People cancel projects and keep their jobs or get new ones all the time. Having the awareness that a project is junk is better for your employment long term than running through way more money and still failing miserably. The people with money notice, and other high level executives notice. Moonshots fail. Pull the damn plug when it's not viable.
You're not 80% of the way there. You haven't made a dent. Because the tech doesn't work and isn't capable of working. Every additional dollar you spend has a massively negative expected return. Chasing "make up your losses" on a project that's dead in the water is virtually never a valid strategy.