It is a little ironic that this article reads so much like an AI-generated one.
It is. Just count how many em dashes in it.
And the article images with the signature AI-face
The Companies Cutting Headcount for AI Will Lose to the Ones Who Didn't
21–30 of 218 posts
Re: The Companies Cutting Headcount for AI Will Lose to the Ones Who Didn't
#22Relatively speaking, a company could obtain AGI first merely by just by keeping their critical thinkers while the rest of the industry offloads their thinking to LLMs. It wouldn’t be AGI, just GI, like we’ve always had before before GPT arrived
Re: The Companies Cutting Headcount for AI Will Lose to the Ones Who Didn't
#23Cutting people because of AI makes no sense, you know these people are good without AI, you'd want to keep them! Freeze the constant over-hiring instead, and take care of the people you know aren't lobotomized yet, and train them if needed. I'm seeing so much shedding of knowledge workers though, even though AI clearly isn't ready to replace people, just ready to augment them currently, that it looks like looney-tune…
On the scale of a company, augmenting is replacing. If a worker plus AI can do the work of two workers without AI (but cheaper), you go for that; and it doesn't matter how good or bad AI is without the human.
That's not always the case. Augmenting certainly can mean that, but it can also mean doing something that people couldn't do before.
For example, looking through meta data in a SQL environment that you didn't know existed to troubleshoot an issue. And a million other things. The odds of any employee not knowing everything are very good, even when humanity as a whole had already discovered that thing.
Re: The Companies Cutting Headcount for AI Will Lose to the Ones Who Didn't
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the scale of a company, augmenting is replacing. If a worker plus AI can do the work of two workers without AI (but cheaper), you go for that; and it doesn't matter how good or bad AI is without the human.
The point is if a worker plus AI can do the work of two workers without AI, then why not keep both workers and have them both use AI to have the equivalent of four non-assisted workers?
Because the entire structure of the business is designed for approximately the amount of work it currently does and likely has no particular immediate use for twice as much work in most departments.
Re: The Companies Cutting Headcount for AI Will Lose to the Ones Who Didn't
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the scale of a company, augmenting is replacing. If a worker plus AI can do the work of two workers without AI (but cheaper), you go for that; and it doesn't matter how good or bad AI is without the human.
The point is if a worker plus AI can do the work of two workers without AI, then why not keep both workers and have them both use AI to have the equivalent of four non-assisted workers?
Diminishing returns on additional labor.
Re: The Companies Cutting Headcount for AI Will Lose to the Ones Who Didn't
#26Cutting people because of AI makes no sense, you know these people are good without AI, you'd want to keep them! Freeze the constant over-hiring instead, and take care of the people you know aren't lobotomized yet, and train them if needed. I'm seeing so much shedding of knowledge workers though, even though AI clearly isn't ready to replace people, just ready to augment them currently, that it looks like looney-tune…
On the scale of a company, augmenting is replacing. If a worker plus AI can do the work of two workers without AI (but cheaper), you go for that; and it doesn't matter how good or bad AI is without the human.
When the AI models hallucinate up a catastrophe, managers will reevaluate that calculus.
Humans are accountable and act accordingly, models are not.
Re: The Companies Cutting Headcount for AI Will Lose to the Ones Who Didn't
#27[dead]
Re: The Companies Cutting Headcount for AI Will Lose to the Ones Who Didn't
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is if a worker plus AI can do the work of two workers without AI, then why not keep both workers and have them both use AI to have the equivalent of four non-assisted workers?
Because you don’t have enough work that really needs doing, at least in that particular area. You cut engineers because the bottleneck to increased revenue isn’t software features or bugs, it’s marketing/sales; human beings’ limited attention for which there is now more competition than ever; and customers’ available funds. ETA: this is sometimes (though not always) very different for a mature company than an early s…
That is a very convenient message for marketing and sales people. The fact that their whole job is crafting messages shouldn’t raise any eyebrows.
Re: The Companies Cutting Headcount for AI Will Lose to the Ones Who Didn't
#29[flagged]
I always thought that the person you describe doesn't actually exist in any statistically meaningful way. And that it's just social media exploiting those who are suspectible to lazy narratives. Not that tech companies can't be bloated. But I think the bloat is far less obvious when viewed from more than one perspective. Ie. there's an enormous amount of wrongly placed "what do they even do here?" because we only see…
[deleted]
Re: The Companies Cutting Headcount for AI Will Lose to the Ones Who Didn't
#30This is a pro-AI piece. They realized they overplayed their hands when college graduates started booing them and their new line is "AI won't replace workers, it will make them more valuable!"