AI layoffs
AI layoffs
38 comments
-
CEO: why not both?
-
Shareholders: why not all three?
-
CEO is the first role to go!
-
-
given that LLMs and gen AIs are great at talking bullshit and creating presentations, one is a more realistic expectation than the other
-
I'll believe AI can replace engineers when I see NVIDIA firing them. But like the graphic says, the manager's job seems a lot easier to replace instead.
-
-
Managers might not like people but they don't want to get rid of them. There's no cheap thrill from micromanaging an AI.
-
100,000% this - money or even utility seems to not be everything, compared to feeling self-importance
-
Plus it's harder to pass the buck and blame an AI for your screw ups. It would be perceived, as the kids say, as a skills issue.
-
-
Owners: with AI we can finally get rid of everyone
-
If we fire all developers and allow AIs to program themselves, the AIs are going to commit virtual seppuku after a few days.
-
Can we build an AI manager that just keeps asking for different shades of red?
-
AIs are going to commit virtual seppuku after a few days.
Yes. And that's our best case scenario. Worst case is a wildly incompetent, but still effective form of SkyNet.
-
-
It's the marketing department that should really be worried.
-
Like the C level isn't the marketing department
-
And to be fair, like always, good marketing is genius stuff.
But it also feels rare. I suspect precisely because C-suite and upper management love to mess with it, so the rote marketing approach gets normalized, which in turn drives all the decent marketing people away.
-
-
Only one of them gets to make the decision to fire the other
-
Could probably replace managers with AI, but being trained on most managers would mean it would be equally bad at its job.
I think the most likely is for the artists jobs to go away as art doesn't have to be exact, but code does.
-
Maybe the central problem is racing to put other people out of work period, regardless of who they are. Maybe putting people out of work is not a net benefit for society, it's actually negative in the long run, and only truly a benefit for shareholders. They don't need any more of those at the expense of the working class.
-
Ideally, nobody should have to work.
The problem is that labor-saving technology is never permitted to save labor. We make those displaced laborers go do other shit.
-
It should be a net benefit for society. Any system in which it isn't is a very flawed system. Like most of the world right now.
-
38 comments