3 ms·

<< I will accept we agree to disagree and I'm perfectly fine with it, but the wave of layoffs in IT sector is because of lack of money to pay salaries. I was w

<< I will accept we agree to disagree and I'm perfectly fine with it, but the wave of layoffs in IT sector is because of lack of money to pay salaries. I was with you. I was genuinely nodding along ( including the other comment ) until this portion. That is a hard no. Notice how there is seemingly simultaneously not enough money in the budget for tech workers ( I do not want to limit this conversation to IT support, which is what many equate IT with -- did the use of that acronym change ? ) while there is indeed money for MS executives to enjoy the show[1], money for bonuses[2] and.. I was going to end with a joke but decided against it. I am genuinely unsure how you can reasonably argue otherwise with a straight face. [1]https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-execs-private-sting-show-davos-before-mass-layoff-announcement-2023-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-execs-private-stin... [2]https://thrivetrm.com/executive-compensation-trends-benchmarks-a-zoom-in-on-mid-year-2022/ https://thrivetrm.com/executive-compensation-trends-benchmar...

zmxz 4y ago
> until this portion. That is a hard no. Ok, I accept your argument as valid. There are sufficient funds that could be used for salaries. Let's imagine for a second you are hiring me. You have $40 in bank and I cost you $1 a year. In past 5 years, I never made you a single $. I just cost you $1 a year, with slight increases. You paid me $5 so far. Would you keep paying me $1 a year or would you rather invest (the $5 you'd spend on me in next 5 years) into this new thing called AI, hoping you might get $10 out of it? Purely looking at numbers, deciding objectively and without emotion - what seems the best for you?
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  In the current state of AI? I guess it would depend heavily on the job at hand. My concerns with current iterations are privacy ( how do I know sensitive data ingested to feed the model won't be re-used ala co-pilot or gpt for other entities and some information should stay where it is ) and errors which necessitate human babysitting anyway. There is a clear benefit to automation ( in fact, its usually my spiel ), but it is going to happen anyway so I am not sure what the argument is in this instance. Would you be willing to elaborate?

zmxz 4y ago

> until this portion. That is a hard no. Ok, I accept your argument as valid. There are sufficient funds that could be used for salaries. Let's imagine for a second you are hiring me. You have $40 in bank and I cost you $1 a year. In past 5 years, I never made you a single $. I just cost you $1 a year, with slight increases. You paid me $5 so far. Would you keep paying me $1 a year or would you rather invest (the $5 you'd spend on me in next 5 years) into this new thing called AI, hoping you might get $10 out of it? Purely looking at numbers, deciding objectively and without emotion - what seems the best for you?

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
In the current state of AI? I guess it would depend heavily on the job at hand. My concerns with current iterations are privacy ( how do I know sensitive data ingested to feed the model won't be re-used ala co-pilot or gpt for other entities and some information should stay where it is ) and errors which necessitate human babysitting anyway. There is a clear benefit to automation ( in fact, its usually my spiel ), but it is going to happen anyway so I am not sure what the argument is in this instance. Would you be willing to elaborate?