▲ 154 ▼ AI agents meant to replace Meta workers made “large-scale, disruptive actions” (arstechnica.com) submitted 2 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world 25 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] ryper@lemmy.ca 31 points 2 months ago (7 children) Move fast and break things No, not like that! permalink fedilink source hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago (6 children) Techbros didn't even invent that shit. That and "disruption" was just going into an existing market, flooding it quickly with cheap prices, and the second you squeeze out competition jack up rates. It's the same thing Walmart did. With AI they offer it cheaper than humans because they're burning investor cash and not making money. Once a company fires staff, their next AI contract switches to per token price instead of monthly unlimited. And then suddenly realizing the "rockstars" that kept their job because they were AI experts, were just sitting at their laptop 8 hours straight constantly prompting over and over again. After that they're paying more than they were before AI with a shittier product and completely unpredictable workflow completely reliant on AI usage. Hopefully we're reaching the point even c-suite execs figure it out. Once they do it'll pop. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 months ago (5 children) the only problem I see with that theory is that the employee count reduction might let them go below legal limits requiring more bullshit making it cheaper to pay more for Ai than the people it replaced because you have less regulatory nonsense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 months ago (4 children) Being below a certain employee count reduces worker protections It does not change the cost of the slop (which is currently artificially tiny) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago (3 children) do some of those protections not involve expensive machinery (like sawstop saws)? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago (2 children) Wouldn’t something like that be machinery the saw company already owns? Does slop not involve expensive machinery? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 months ago (1 child) mostly thinking if you could shave off the administrative employees (like finance and marketing) you could fall below the limit) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago The limit for what? The bottom line is that AI is both more expensive and less productive than humans for at least 99% of tasks permalink fedilink source parent
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago (6 children) Techbros didn't even invent that shit. That and "disruption" was just going into an existing market, flooding it quickly with cheap prices, and the second you squeeze out competition jack up rates. It's the same thing Walmart did. With AI they offer it cheaper than humans because they're burning investor cash and not making money. Once a company fires staff, their next AI contract switches to per token price instead of monthly unlimited. And then suddenly realizing the "rockstars" that kept their job because they were AI experts, were just sitting at their laptop 8 hours straight constantly prompting over and over again. After that they're paying more than they were before AI with a shittier product and completely unpredictable workflow completely reliant on AI usage. Hopefully we're reaching the point even c-suite execs figure it out. Once they do it'll pop. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 months ago (5 children) the only problem I see with that theory is that the employee count reduction might let them go below legal limits requiring more bullshit making it cheaper to pay more for Ai than the people it replaced because you have less regulatory nonsense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 months ago (4 children) Being below a certain employee count reduces worker protections It does not change the cost of the slop (which is currently artificially tiny) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago (3 children) do some of those protections not involve expensive machinery (like sawstop saws)? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago (2 children) Wouldn’t something like that be machinery the saw company already owns? Does slop not involve expensive machinery? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 months ago (1 child) mostly thinking if you could shave off the administrative employees (like finance and marketing) you could fall below the limit) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago The limit for what? The bottom line is that AI is both more expensive and less productive than humans for at least 99% of tasks permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 months ago (5 children) the only problem I see with that theory is that the employee count reduction might let them go below legal limits requiring more bullshit making it cheaper to pay more for Ai than the people it replaced because you have less regulatory nonsense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 months ago (4 children) Being below a certain employee count reduces worker protections It does not change the cost of the slop (which is currently artificially tiny) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago (3 children) do some of those protections not involve expensive machinery (like sawstop saws)? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago (2 children) Wouldn’t something like that be machinery the saw company already owns? Does slop not involve expensive machinery? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 months ago (1 child) mostly thinking if you could shave off the administrative employees (like finance and marketing) you could fall below the limit) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago The limit for what? The bottom line is that AI is both more expensive and less productive than humans for at least 99% of tasks permalink fedilink source parent
[–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 months ago (4 children) Being below a certain employee count reduces worker protections It does not change the cost of the slop (which is currently artificially tiny) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago (3 children) do some of those protections not involve expensive machinery (like sawstop saws)? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago (2 children) Wouldn’t something like that be machinery the saw company already owns? Does slop not involve expensive machinery? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 months ago (1 child) mostly thinking if you could shave off the administrative employees (like finance and marketing) you could fall below the limit) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago The limit for what? The bottom line is that AI is both more expensive and less productive than humans for at least 99% of tasks permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago (3 children) do some of those protections not involve expensive machinery (like sawstop saws)? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago (2 children) Wouldn’t something like that be machinery the saw company already owns? Does slop not involve expensive machinery? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 months ago (1 child) mostly thinking if you could shave off the administrative employees (like finance and marketing) you could fall below the limit) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago The limit for what? The bottom line is that AI is both more expensive and less productive than humans for at least 99% of tasks permalink fedilink source parent
[–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago (2 children) Wouldn’t something like that be machinery the saw company already owns? Does slop not involve expensive machinery? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 months ago (1 child) mostly thinking if you could shave off the administrative employees (like finance and marketing) you could fall below the limit) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago The limit for what? The bottom line is that AI is both more expensive and less productive than humans for at least 99% of tasks permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 months ago (1 child) mostly thinking if you could shave off the administrative employees (like finance and marketing) you could fall below the limit) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago The limit for what? The bottom line is that AI is both more expensive and less productive than humans for at least 99% of tasks permalink fedilink source parent
[–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago The limit for what? The bottom line is that AI is both more expensive and less productive than humans for at least 99% of tasks permalink fedilink source parent