▲ 326 ▼ 99% of CEOs Expect AI-Driven Layoffs in the Next Two Years (gizmodo.com) submitted 5 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world 75 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] DaddleDew@lemmy.world 170 points 5 months ago (9 children) They expect layoffs. They're just going to blame AI for it. permalink fedilink source hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Lon3star@lemmy.world [B] 42 points 5 months ago Exactly this... Even ones actually attributed to AI will likely be an overreach that won't be realized until after a person's life has been totally upended... Shit's gonna be bleak permalink fedilink source parent [–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago Bingpot! permalink fedilink source parent [+] masterspace@lemmy.ca -21 points 5 months ago (6 children) This is too dismissive. Industrialization and automation has already eliminated an entire class of work that was otherwise there. In a hunter gathered society or an early industrial society there was always work for everyone, in modern capitalist society, there quite frankly isn't, and that leads to huge numbers of people just being cast aside. And AI may wipe out a huge number of the rest. I genuinely can't possibly fathom how it will do anything but exacerbate every single one of society's problems. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] dexa_scantron@lemmy.world 27 points 5 months ago (3 children) LLMs are not and will never be good enough to replace human labor. Augment it, sure, and that could lead to fewer jobs but that's not generally what happens. They are, however, good enough for execs to think they can replace human labor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 8 points 5 months ago The AI doesn't need to be better than the professional it's replacing, it just needs to be more cost effective than the barely capable outsourced worker the jobs was going to be given anyway. permalink fedilink source parent replies: [–] CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago Not really, because when an employee fails their task it's the employee's responsibility, and if it's catastrophic enough it can lead to firings or lawsuits. But as soon as it's a chatbot, the liability fully rests on the company. How long will insurance protect those companies too? permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) [–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 6 points 5 months ago (2 children) They don't have to be as good to replace us. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] farting_gorilla@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago (1 child) It even can be a feature if AI isn't as good as the people they are replacing. For example, in the case of call centers/help lines, it might be more desirable to have a shitty system to discourage callers yet have plausible deniability… I find I'm referencing Cory Doctorow a lot lately… permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago The issue is that those bots are worse in completely unpredictable ways. Like when some airline passengers were given incorrect information which led to the airline being sued and having to pay the made up offer as well as damages & tribunal fees. The bots might be unhelpful, but to the disservice of the company's financials permalink fedilink source parent [–] Xaphanos@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago I was in a meeting at a credit card company about 2 decades ago where a VP said exactly that - without the AI part. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) [–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmings.world 2 points 5 months ago (-1 children) The AI won't replace labor, automation/robotics will do that. AI will provide the brain to operate the automation properly. We've had the automation for a long time, the AI is making the difference. They are working very hard on the intersection of AI and Automation to replace human labor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow -1 child comments load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) [–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 6 points 5 months ago There is a question of timeline. Maybe in 10+ years, but not 2. The early wave of layoffs in the sector "due to AI" were at the same time as the interest rate went up, pushing all tech companies to start focusing on profit. A lot of unprofitable divisions were cut because it stopped making financial sense to invest in products that didn't have day 1 revenue. You're now seeing companies doing layoffs and claiming AI to either hide that development in their companies have stalled or they are taking advantage of their new shiny remote work platforms to push wages down by shifting workers to places with lower cost of living. AI labor isn't worth its tokens, even when they are heavily discounted to gain market share. It might be in a decade, but not now. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Lon3star@lemmy.world [B] 42 points 5 months ago Exactly this... Even ones actually attributed to AI will likely be an overreach that won't be realized until after a person's life has been totally upended... Shit's gonna be bleak permalink fedilink source parent
[+] masterspace@lemmy.ca -21 points 5 months ago (6 children) This is too dismissive. Industrialization and automation has already eliminated an entire class of work that was otherwise there. In a hunter gathered society or an early industrial society there was always work for everyone, in modern capitalist society, there quite frankly isn't, and that leads to huge numbers of people just being cast aside. And AI may wipe out a huge number of the rest. I genuinely can't possibly fathom how it will do anything but exacerbate every single one of society's problems. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] dexa_scantron@lemmy.world 27 points 5 months ago (3 children) LLMs are not and will never be good enough to replace human labor. Augment it, sure, and that could lead to fewer jobs but that's not generally what happens. They are, however, good enough for execs to think they can replace human labor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 8 points 5 months ago The AI doesn't need to be better than the professional it's replacing, it just needs to be more cost effective than the barely capable outsourced worker the jobs was going to be given anyway. permalink fedilink source parent replies: [–] CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago Not really, because when an employee fails their task it's the employee's responsibility, and if it's catastrophic enough it can lead to firings or lawsuits. But as soon as it's a chatbot, the liability fully rests on the company. How long will insurance protect those companies too? permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) [–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 6 points 5 months ago (2 children) They don't have to be as good to replace us. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] farting_gorilla@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago (1 child) It even can be a feature if AI isn't as good as the people they are replacing. For example, in the case of call centers/help lines, it might be more desirable to have a shitty system to discourage callers yet have plausible deniability… I find I'm referencing Cory Doctorow a lot lately… permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago The issue is that those bots are worse in completely unpredictable ways. Like when some airline passengers were given incorrect information which led to the airline being sued and having to pay the made up offer as well as damages & tribunal fees. The bots might be unhelpful, but to the disservice of the company's financials permalink fedilink source parent [–] Xaphanos@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago I was in a meeting at a credit card company about 2 decades ago where a VP said exactly that - without the AI part. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) [–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmings.world 2 points 5 months ago (-1 children) The AI won't replace labor, automation/robotics will do that. AI will provide the brain to operate the automation properly. We've had the automation for a long time, the AI is making the difference. They are working very hard on the intersection of AI and Automation to replace human labor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow -1 child comments load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) [–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 6 points 5 months ago There is a question of timeline. Maybe in 10+ years, but not 2. The early wave of layoffs in the sector "due to AI" were at the same time as the interest rate went up, pushing all tech companies to start focusing on profit. A lot of unprofitable divisions were cut because it stopped making financial sense to invest in products that didn't have day 1 revenue. You're now seeing companies doing layoffs and claiming AI to either hide that development in their companies have stalled or they are taking advantage of their new shiny remote work platforms to push wages down by shifting workers to places with lower cost of living. AI labor isn't worth its tokens, even when they are heavily discounted to gain market share. It might be in a decade, but not now. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] dexa_scantron@lemmy.world 27 points 5 months ago (3 children) LLMs are not and will never be good enough to replace human labor. Augment it, sure, and that could lead to fewer jobs but that's not generally what happens. They are, however, good enough for execs to think they can replace human labor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 8 points 5 months ago The AI doesn't need to be better than the professional it's replacing, it just needs to be more cost effective than the barely capable outsourced worker the jobs was going to be given anyway. permalink fedilink source parent replies: [–] CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago Not really, because when an employee fails their task it's the employee's responsibility, and if it's catastrophic enough it can lead to firings or lawsuits. But as soon as it's a chatbot, the liability fully rests on the company. How long will insurance protect those companies too? permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) [–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 6 points 5 months ago (2 children) They don't have to be as good to replace us. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] farting_gorilla@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago (1 child) It even can be a feature if AI isn't as good as the people they are replacing. For example, in the case of call centers/help lines, it might be more desirable to have a shitty system to discourage callers yet have plausible deniability… I find I'm referencing Cory Doctorow a lot lately… permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago The issue is that those bots are worse in completely unpredictable ways. Like when some airline passengers were given incorrect information which led to the airline being sued and having to pay the made up offer as well as damages & tribunal fees. The bots might be unhelpful, but to the disservice of the company's financials permalink fedilink source parent [–] Xaphanos@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago I was in a meeting at a credit card company about 2 decades ago where a VP said exactly that - without the AI part. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) [–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmings.world 2 points 5 months ago (-1 children) The AI won't replace labor, automation/robotics will do that. AI will provide the brain to operate the automation properly. We've had the automation for a long time, the AI is making the difference. They are working very hard on the intersection of AI and Automation to replace human labor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow -1 child comments load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 8 points 5 months ago The AI doesn't need to be better than the professional it's replacing, it just needs to be more cost effective than the barely capable outsourced worker the jobs was going to be given anyway. permalink fedilink source parent replies: [–] CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago Not really, because when an employee fails their task it's the employee's responsibility, and if it's catastrophic enough it can lead to firings or lawsuits. But as soon as it's a chatbot, the liability fully rests on the company. How long will insurance protect those companies too? permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago Not really, because when an employee fails their task it's the employee's responsibility, and if it's catastrophic enough it can lead to firings or lawsuits. But as soon as it's a chatbot, the liability fully rests on the company. How long will insurance protect those companies too? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 6 points 5 months ago (2 children) They don't have to be as good to replace us. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] farting_gorilla@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago (1 child) It even can be a feature if AI isn't as good as the people they are replacing. For example, in the case of call centers/help lines, it might be more desirable to have a shitty system to discourage callers yet have plausible deniability… I find I'm referencing Cory Doctorow a lot lately… permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago The issue is that those bots are worse in completely unpredictable ways. Like when some airline passengers were given incorrect information which led to the airline being sued and having to pay the made up offer as well as damages & tribunal fees. The bots might be unhelpful, but to the disservice of the company's financials permalink fedilink source parent [–] Xaphanos@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago I was in a meeting at a credit card company about 2 decades ago where a VP said exactly that - without the AI part. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] farting_gorilla@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago (1 child) It even can be a feature if AI isn't as good as the people they are replacing. For example, in the case of call centers/help lines, it might be more desirable to have a shitty system to discourage callers yet have plausible deniability… I find I'm referencing Cory Doctorow a lot lately… permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago The issue is that those bots are worse in completely unpredictable ways. Like when some airline passengers were given incorrect information which led to the airline being sued and having to pay the made up offer as well as damages & tribunal fees. The bots might be unhelpful, but to the disservice of the company's financials permalink fedilink source parent [–] Xaphanos@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago I was in a meeting at a credit card company about 2 decades ago where a VP said exactly that - without the AI part. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago The issue is that those bots are worse in completely unpredictable ways. Like when some airline passengers were given incorrect information which led to the airline being sued and having to pay the made up offer as well as damages & tribunal fees. The bots might be unhelpful, but to the disservice of the company's financials permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Xaphanos@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago I was in a meeting at a credit card company about 2 decades ago where a VP said exactly that - without the AI part. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmings.world 2 points 5 months ago (-1 children) The AI won't replace labor, automation/robotics will do that. AI will provide the brain to operate the automation properly. We've had the automation for a long time, the AI is making the difference. They are working very hard on the intersection of AI and Automation to replace human labor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow -1 child comments load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 6 points 5 months ago There is a question of timeline. Maybe in 10+ years, but not 2. The early wave of layoffs in the sector "due to AI" were at the same time as the interest rate went up, pushing all tech companies to start focusing on profit. A lot of unprofitable divisions were cut because it stopped making financial sense to invest in products that didn't have day 1 revenue. You're now seeing companies doing layoffs and claiming AI to either hide that development in their companies have stalled or they are taking advantage of their new shiny remote work platforms to push wages down by shifting workers to places with lower cost of living. AI labor isn't worth its tokens, even when they are heavily discounted to gain market share. It might be in a decade, but not now. permalink fedilink source parent