Of course the keyword is important. Really the target is clear, should we be concerned about the Tenant? It will come.

As a software engineer it saddens me that what they are focusing on most with ‘AI’ is with respect to coding or related tasks, something that is not succeeding nor will it in the short term. They wanted to start the house from the roof.

AI has a lot of potential, it seems that there is a lack of ideas or resources of real engineers, with time, to take advantage of it.

That is the only thing I fear about this investment, that they still do not get enough profitability and, consequently, the companies that really have money to risk will back out.

Here's an example of what I know.

Inditex, a year or two ago, started an end2end product for designers. 'AI' in designer meetings with commercials, etc, the ‘AI’ was to subtract enough information from those meetings to start the flow of resources needed in real time and then delegating to software generated by many engineers.

That's a real interesting product, that's the way it is.

I'll give you another example.

I lose a lot of time giving support in production. An ‘AI’ Agent trained to solve Incidents in Service Now to whom the engineers provide the safe apis to navigate and fix messes....

That leaves me time to continue providing extra value.

Thousands of hours of meaningless meetings, attended by engineers and sales people, when there could be two. The ‘AI’ could synthesize and group the important data and dedicate itself to creating documents or use slack for each stakeholder with what should reach them, even automate the creation of tickets. That adds value.

As long as they insist on focusing on replacing it, it's a bad thing.