7 ms·

What’s the difference? AI-motivated job cuts are widespread in all sectors, and companies are phrasing them as “efficiency improvements.” This is only possible

by gcr 3y ago

What’s the difference? AI-motivated job cuts are widespread in all sectors, and companies are phrasing them as “efficiency improvements.” This is only possible because of recent advances in LLM capability. If anything, skilled experts are slightly less likely to be replaced by AI (with notable exceptions for visual artists) “IBM Plans To Replace Nearly 8,000 Jobs With AI” https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ibm-plans-replace-nearly-8-174052360.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ibm-plans-replace-nearly-8-17... “Around four in 10 [business leaders surveyed by ResumeBuilder] said they'll conduct layoffs as they replace workers with AI, with Dropbox, Google, and IBM have already announced job cuts for that very reason“ https://www.businessinsider.com/layoffs-sweeping-us-these-are-companies-making-cuts-2024 https://www.businessinsider.com/layoffs-sweeping-us-these-ar... “A recent Goldman Sachs study found that generative AI tools could, in fact, impact 300 million full-time jobs worldwide, which could lead to a "significant disruption" in the job market” https://www.businessinsider.com/chatgpt-jobs-at-risk-replacement-artificial-intelligence-ai-labor-trends-2023-02 https://www.businessinsider.com/chatgpt-jobs-at-risk-replace...

no_wizard 3y ago
Reality is that knowing LLM and other AI tech now is going to be a long term distinct advantage for software engineers of all stripes and those that don’t know will fall behind
- necovek 3y ago
  To me that does not sound like a "reality", but a hypothesis that many are willing to bet on today. It may turn out to be true, but I don't see any proof of that yet, not even in the social sciences-style of proof (which is admittedly a lower bar to clear than mathematical-style proofs, but that would do for now).
  - gcr 3y ago
    I share your skepticism about AI tools being effective. However, when we look at it from a labor relations perspective, what's important is the threat of being replaced, and that's happening now. I think the threat itself is (currently) far more damaging to workers' psychological safety (thus team performance) than whatever outcomes using AI (currently) actually brings. My point is that we're already beyond the "fuck around" threshold; your point (if I understand you correctly) is that we haven't reached the "find out" threshold yet. :)
necovek 3y ago
Thanks, but I am really curious about the jobs AI itself has replaced today. Note the use of "will", "could" and "plans" in those articles: none of this has materialized today, as was implied in the GP post. > What's the difference? The difference is in chasing the market potential vs actually achieving that potential today: it seems to me generative AI is not replacing any jobs today, but AI experts are being hired in lieu of traditional software experts en masse, hoping for generative AI advances to continue to the point where those efficiencies materialize (which is never a given, but I do see the business reasons to bet on it). One statement is that generative AI is good enough to replace workers today (which I haven't seen proof of yet), and another is that it seems this might happen in the (near) future so let's invest in developing AI more (also implying that where it is today is not sufficient).

by gcr 3y ago

no_wizard 3y ago

Reality is that knowing LLM and other AI tech now is going to be a long term distinct advantage for software engineers of all stripes and those that don’t know will fall behind

necovek 3y ago
To me that does not sound like a "reality", but a hypothesis that many are willing to bet on today. It may turn out to be true, but I don't see any proof of that yet, not even in the social sciences-style of proof (which is admittedly a lower bar to clear than mathematical-style proofs, but that would do for now).
- gcr 3y ago
  I share your skepticism about AI tools being effective. However, when we look at it from a labor relations perspective, what's important is the threat of being replaced, and that's happening now. I think the threat itself is (currently) far more damaging to workers' psychological safety (thus team performance) than whatever outcomes using AI (currently) actually brings. My point is that we're already beyond the "fuck around" threshold; your point (if I understand you correctly) is that we haven't reached the "find out" threshold yet. :)

necovek 3y ago

Thanks, but I am really curious about the jobs AI itself has replaced today. Note the use of "will", "could" and "plans" in those articles: none of this has materialized today, as was implied in the GP post. > What's the difference? The difference is in chasing the market potential vs actually achieving that potential today: it seems to me generative AI is not replacing any jobs today, but AI experts are being hired in lieu of traditional software experts en masse, hoping for generative AI advances to continue to the point where those efficiencies materialize (which is never a given, but I do see the business reasons to bet on it). One statement is that generative AI is good enough to replace workers today (which I haven't seen proof of yet), and another is that it seems this might happen in the (near) future so let's invest in developing AI more (also implying that where it is today is not sufficient).