this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2024
165 points (93.2% liked)

Technology

72742 readers
1408 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

And last year they were all saying some variation on "don't worry, AI is not going to cost anyone their jobs."

Key take away for anyone is to never trust what an executive is saying. Much like a politician, if their lips are moving they are probably lying.

all 45 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] eksb@programming.dev 66 points 2 years ago (1 children)
  1. CEO wastes a ton of money on generative AI
  2. CEO fires a bunch of people to hit quarterly profit targets

generative AI resulted in job cuts.

[–] andrewrgross@slrpnk.net 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yeah, what's unfortunate about CEO predictions is that they can kind of just will their expected result into being by acting on it whether it's sound or not.

Still, I think it's well past time we started preparing for high surplus labor. We're already in the early stages of post scarcity, and if we don't embrace something like socialism, we're getting more dystopia.

[–] Asafum@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I have absofuckinglutley no faith whatsoever in our society to do the right thing in this respect. We value ownership waytoofuckingmuch when it comes to businesses, were never going to get past the argument of "I put forward the capital for this business, I am entitled to all of the profits. Who cares that there is no work for you? No work no pay."

I forsee a gigantic increase in homelessness and politicians will use that as an excuse to further cut any social spending as they'll pin all our issues on "communist policies." :(

[–] andrewrgross@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Are you familiar with the term "capitalist realism"?

[–] Asafum@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Not in that term, but as a concept. I do know it now though so thanks!

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 39 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Reminder: the problem is 100% capitalism, 0% technology. We've built a truly perverse economic system in which eliminating labor hurts people.

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Who’s we? In the country I grew up in, you’d get two years of unemployment benefits (90% of your previous salary), free education and free student support of $1000/month while retraining. This country runs with a surplus and one of the lowest levels of foreign debt and, no, it’s not a financial haven/tax shelter.

It’s about how we structure society - let no one tell you otherwise, capitalism or not.

[–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

What country do you live in?

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 7 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I live in the UK now which is a modern feudal state and more or less a failed state. I grew up in Denmark though, which was the country I was referring to.

[–] weirdo_from_space@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I have to say this, if you think UK is a modern feudal and a failed state then ya ain't seen nothin' yet!

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 1 points 2 years ago

Oh I’m aware that there’s a long way to go still before rock bottom. Having lived here for 23 years, it’s only gone one direction unfortunately.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

No lies detected.

[–] thatgirlwasfire@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If you dont mind sharing, why did you end up moving to the UK?

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 2 points 2 years ago

I wanted to work in games and there was neither the degree nor the employment at the time (nowadays Copenhagen is doing quite well for the games industry). So went to study in the U.K., found a job there, met my (English) wife and had kids here. We keep dreaming about moving to Denmark, but with four kids there’s a lot of schooling to align. Maybe later.

[–] quantum_mechanic@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

We have Jack Welch to thank for this trend. It wasn't always that way.

[–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Or Henry Ford. Heck choose anyone in the Industrial revolution. Thats when this started truly kicking off.

[–] quantum_mechanic@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Well, it was Jack Welch who started the braindead "line goes up" trend of making their share price raise by any means, usually layoffs. Before him, people still had jobs for life and were somwhat looked after by their employers. Behind the bastards podcast did a good episode on him.

[–] WHYAREWEALLCAPS@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago

It hurst people not rich enough to be in the 1% or above. The 1% or above will benefit from it in the short term. In the long term it is going to hurt them as fewer and fewer people will be able to buy their products and services. At least for this quarter it'll look dynamite.

Capitalism is going to eat itself.

[–] orclev@lemmy.world 26 points 2 years ago (1 children)

More accurate headline: Stupid CEOs who believe hype about tech they don't even remotely understand fire a bunch of workers because they don't think they need them anymore.

These same morons are going to be hiring back most of the people they fired in a year or so after it becomes apparent that none of this is going to work even remotely like they think it will.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

For CEOs it's all about the bottom line. Let's say a print magazine lays off a bunch of writers and replaced them with AI. Readership will likely drop due to the quality drop and people not buying the magazine on principle. Let's say it's a 10% revenue drop, but they already cut costs by 35% with all the layoffs. If they come out as more profitable that's a win for them.

I mean Amazon gets shittier by the day but continue to grow their margins and market share. Products don't need to be good to sell, they need to be "good enough".

[–] deaf_fish@lemm.ee 25 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I wonder how well an AI would be able to do a CEO's job? Why not start with the most expensive employee?

[–] frezik@midwest.social 19 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure I could train an AI to make racist jokes at a board meeting. That's halfway there already.

[–] Mr_Blott@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Hi hon, can you make an AI to snort coke then fuck me in the stationery cupboard?

[–] Snapz@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago

There will be cuts, we just haven't decided why yet....

[–] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 21 points 2 years ago

I agree with their outlook.

Can we include CEOs as those positions laid off? They don't do fuck all but save the company money, that can be done by an Excel spreadsheet.

[–] thejml@lemm.ee 15 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Developers: I could use AI to increase my output and productivity while better testing code and coming up with unique ways to speed up runtimes!

CEO: We could do the same output with less people!

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Producing more doesn't automatically mean you will sell more. If that was true then why do manufacturers intentionally cut production?

[–] JeffKerman1999@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Because software isn't something tangible that must go into the shelves. If you sell 1 or sell a billion copies the difference in costs is negligible. Completely different for physical objects where you need to produce just enough or if you make a nice cartel you can produce less and increase the prices.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

That makes the point just as well. Company X uses AI to put software out even faster but the demand didn't suddenly manifest from nowhere so they sold the same amount. What do they do with the extra time? Sure they can work on something new, but there's probably an equal chance they keep release cycles the same and get rid of dead weight (i.e. people).

[–] thejml@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

Artificial scarcity…

But seriously, production for physical goods, you slow down because there’s too many on the shelves. I’m more talking about digital goods like app development. For them Production means features. The only time you scale back is that you either don’t know what features your buyers want, you can’t sell what you have produced, you have no bugs (which never happens), or you are trying save money/balance budgets where you don’t make enough to pay for the development teams.

[–] winterayars@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I mean we saw this in 2023. Companies fired people and replaced them with AI that was unable to do the job.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago

Reminds me of the John Deere strike, where the back-office folks were told they needed to fill in for the machinists and truckers.

People literally do not understand what a LLM does, how it is useful, or why it would be employed. Its like firing your hospital staff and filling every room with an MRI machine, a stethoscope, and a sign that reads "You figure it out".

[–] Paradox 11 points 2 years ago

Can we start with the CEOs? Pretty sure shatGPT can do their jobs easily

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 11 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm actually okay with this if it results in fewer duties with the same number of jobs.

There's an awful lot of stuff in my job that is just tedious busy work. No human ever reads the reports I write, so they might as well not even be written by human either.

[–] cashews_best_nut@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

You'll get more work, lower pay and you'll be fucking grateful!

[–] diffusive@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I am here with my popcorn to see how well this will play for those CEOs.

We are in an age in which getting to a power position is a reality show. You don’t need to know how to do anything, really. It’s enough that you have charisma and trigger emotions (possibly negative emotions, they work better)

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

In theory because of AI in the future the only people will be worth a damn will be people with actually original ideas. They'll tell the AI what to do and then the AI will run the business.

[–] melroy@kbin.melroy.org 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The current AI generation tools, are tools and are still unable to replace people, simply because AI's do not know all the requirements, do not have the over-all overview, it still makes mistakes (even if you think the code is good or even working), it's not very creative. AI needs constant instructions as well.. So in general I'm not afraid at all of these current AIs. It's just a tool... like an editor or stackoverflow for support Q&A.

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

All of those limitations you describe on AI also apply to a lot of humans.

[–] melroy@kbin.melroy.org 1 points 2 years ago

As if AI is trying to replicate the humans behavior. Then again, I still see GenAI as a tool and not as a replacement for humans. Until at some singularity point in time maybe..

I do believe some jobs might disappear, which are jobs nobody really wanted anyway (sorry). But at the same time, new jobs will arise with new technology just like with the the computer, internet, smartphones, etc..

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 4 points 2 years ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


A quarter of global chief executives expect the deployment of generative artificial intelligence to lead to headcount reductions of at least 5 percent this year, according to a survey unveiled as world and business leaders gathered in Davos, Switzerland.

Industries led by media and entertainment, banking, insurance, and logistics were most likely to predict job losses because of cutting-edge AI tools, according to the poll of top directors conducted by PwC ahead of this week’s World Economic Forum.

The findings, based on interviews with 4,702 company chiefs spread across 105 countries, point to the far-reaching impacts that AI models are expected to have on economies and societies, a topic that will feature prominently at the annual meetings.

The PwC survey showed that a rising share of executives envisage strengthening economic growth in 2024, but at the same time are exercised by the need to respond to revolutionary developments including generative AI and climate change.

In the shorter term, the study pointed to receding anxiety about the broader outlook, with less than a quarter of directors reporting that their firm is “highly/extremely” exposed to the threat of inflation, a steep drop from last year’s 40 percent reading.

The findings reflect hopes that the worst of the inflationary upsurge that hit economies from 2021 onwards has now passed, and comes amid investor speculation that central banks led by the US Federal Reserve will start cutting policy rates as soon as this spring.


The original article contains 683 words, the summary contains 240 words. Saved 65%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] HuddaBudda@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago

The findings, based on interviews with 4,702 company chiefs spread across 105 countries, point to the far-reaching impacts that AI models are expected to have on economies and societies, a topic that will feature prominently at the annual meetings.

Once you start digging into the article it is quite hysterical what executives think a predictive chat model are going to replace. It reads more like a wish list then anything else.

But they expect AI to replace transportation, Tesla and General Motors are not having any success with this.... yet. There appears to be a bandwidth issue that isn't going to be solved until the US upgrades to fiber.

Boston dynamics are having a lot of success with their robots of late. Everyone else is stuck still getting robots to stack boxes. Which is also having it's problems with bandwidth. And apparently logic issues.

They also expect things like Energy and power/utilities to be replaced by AI. And that is just dumb. Automation has already swept through the power sector, and AI is not going to help with much else, unless it is going to start repairing power lines, transformers, or the regular substation.

Above all, this is not taking into account the new jobs this also creates. People will need to repair and troubleshoot equipment at multiple layers.

What is also absent from the article is the executive jobs AI will also replace. Once AI can view things at multiple levels. True, you don't need the average worker anymore. But you don't need someone that is just collecting a paycheck, do you? If AI will be programed to replace redundancies, then it won't only find those at lower levels.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago

Looks like consulting jobs are going to be well in demand dealing with this type of bullshit from management everywhere.

[–] AshMan85@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No shit, all automation in history has taken away jobs not created.