Lol. Probably got bonuses then celebrated for identifying the issue and fixing it.

Can we start replacing executives with AI? Big money savings there, and you don't even need a particularly good model

Executives make some major mistakes but never seem to be held accountable.

Probably invested more in AI.

fire her for being caught for not OBFUSCATING THE lay offs as something else.

If only...

Firing a large group of people and re-hiring a subset at reduced rates is a standard business practice used to keep wages down. This wasn't a mistake in policy, it was a clumsy execution.

We definitely are in some ways, but I don't think this applies. Just the past month I've seen several articles about companies doing real work on scaling back AI use, which is good. But a bigger number are still fully invested and everyone who has any say about it have such an extreme AI psychosis that the companies, and possibly themselves, won't survive.

Let's hope the humans learned their lesson and won't teach the systems.

even if they can "put all the knowledge" in the LLM, its unlikely the thing would even be able to use it effectively without the same engineers anyways.

I always thought it was a joke until it happened to friends of mine. Massive layoffs, they were experts in one specific technology, they came back as consultants for a few years with a doubled salary. They were fired again later, but with a lot more money so it was worth it.

It would be great if all the workers would agree on this collectively, rather than just one offs.

In the current job market, you know it was the other way round.

Your thinking like a logical person…not a sycophant with an entitled attitude to their gains.

Jim Farley says a lot of stupid shit to the press.

They'll never hear that though, they'll hear what the want to hear, both via the people at the company and their own brain filter. Then they might see this and other articles but that doesn't matter because they're so far down in the hole of AI psychosis.

Exactly, it's incompetent managers making stupid decisions in the hope of looking good by reducing headcount. People see this and think aha, one more reason to hate AI, but blaming AI is like blaming a fork for not being a spoon.

Out of a cannon I hope.

I had they hope to previous thier double saliear

Mr.Poon is known for fucking things...

My friend, they don't read at all

Yeah, I use it for some programming tasks as well. I’m sick and tired of telling it that it did something wrong or simply omitted something, only to have it apologize and offer to fix its own mistakes.

The active dev I know who uses it daily says it drastically reduces the time he spends on routine tasks and sometimes comes up with novel approaches, but he definitely has to check everything. The problem is inexperienced or non-experienced people thinking it's a magic lamp you can rub and it poofs out an expert programmer.

It's a bottom-dollar offshore team that can type faster. It depends on the situation whether that's something that's worth the time and effort to manage.

It's obnoxious enough to try to use for myself, sometimes useful but obnoxious to review the code and just constant screwups except for exceedingly boilerplate stuff or stuff that can take some sloppiness (e.g. LLM can make it easy to indicate some variables to get from argv and do the tedium of that plus help text plus man page edits and generally do that fine). Even if it doesn't screw up obviously, if the code is verbose, I know a screw up is lurking and just ditch it and do it myself.

However, the real pain comes in as other people use it. Just today someone had an issue and normally they'd ask a developer for help and offer debug appropriate information and/or access. However, they "just had Claude do it, even used Opus 4.8 to make sure it's good" and it generated a very verbose report on the issue, why it went wrong, and the appropriate change to make it work. Very detailed and the explanation sounded quite reasonable. Problem was that it was horribly and absolutely wrong, a fiction of a rationalization over a bad code change. It made a change that happened to appear to work for him, but in reality it replaced a failure due to unrecognized data to silent corruption of the data in a facet the user specifically did not care about. Claude claimed it was correctly mapping the unrecognized data correctly, but it just made up a completely untethered conversion based on nothing. Now I could tell the explanation and code change was bullshit at a glance, but it became an argument because the user wouldn't give me actionable debug details because "he already had Claude fix it". I had to keep trying to find holes in the Claude rationalization that the user would also recognize, and he sided with Claude four times until the fifth problem in Claude's explanation finally stuck (it asserted that the problem was due to running a specific outdated version of a specific software, problem being that specific version never even existed, and the minimum "good" version was 10 years old and the version the user was running was about a month old).

I don't understand how people get this far and still don't understand that AI is much better at sounding plausible than being correct.

They did it all for the nookie.

I bet the executives who made the decision gave themselves a bonus and are still working there despite the monumental blunder.

You mean plastic oil pans might not be great idea?

Are you recommending folks buy something from one of the companies that didn't hire back the people? Or one of the fictional companies that did not use AI as an excuse for layoffs.