3 ms·

I think current implementations of AI are vastly overhyped in the market. There's a huge gap between what people think or expect from AI and what has been deliv

I think current implementations of AI are vastly overhyped in the market. There's a huge gap between what people think or expect from AI and what has been delivered, and the deliveries are not likely to catch up in the short or medium term. There are remarkably few success stories of AI actually replacing employees directly. The best examples we've got are marginal (and conflicting) improvements in software developer productivity. I'm 100% willing to believe some fewer people are getting hired because many employers are actually drinking the kool-aid: they think they won't need them in 3-6 months. I also think fewer people are getting hired due to other economic conditions (e.g. tariffs). Still others see the writing on the wall (AI bubble pop is imminent, recession likely incoming) and don't want to hire for that reason. In any case, I don't think it's because of AI itself.

odie5533 1y ago
> There are remarkably few actual success stories of AI actually replacing employees directly. If I employ 100 people, and AI makes them 10% more productive, then I only need 90 people now to do the same work. AI doesn't have to replace people 1:1 for it to result in job losses. It just needs to increase productivity (or be seen to even). And you might think 100 people that are 10% more productive now I have 110! But that's not how corporations work. When they have extra money, they don't invest it in R&D. They do stock buybacks. And when they have extra productivity, they do layoffs and stock buybacks.
- moduspol 1y ago
  > If I employ 100 people, and AI makes them 10% more productive, then I only need 90 people now to do the same work. I think it's yet to be seen that AI actually makes people 10% more productive, and further, that getting a task done 10% faster actually means they have 10% more time that is actually used for additional tasks. And more bluntly: I think if it actually were happening, it'd be a lot more plainly obvious to all of us. The pressure from the C-suite to integrate AI into our workflows has been widely noted.
  - bluefirebrand 1y ago
    It would be insanely obvious if this was actually happening but instead we are seeing a massive economic downturn So it's all fairy tales and unicorn farts as far as I'm concerned

odie5533 1y ago

> There are remarkably few actual success stories of AI actually replacing employees directly. If I employ 100 people, and AI makes them 10% more productive, then I only need 90 people now to do the same work. AI doesn't have to replace people 1:1 for it to result in job losses. It just needs to increase productivity (or be seen to even). And you might think 100 people that are 10% more productive now I have 110! But that's not how corporations work. When they have extra money, they don't invest it in R&D. They do stock buybacks. And when they have extra productivity, they do layoffs and stock buybacks.

moduspol 1y ago
> If I employ 100 people, and AI makes them 10% more productive, then I only need 90 people now to do the same work. I think it's yet to be seen that AI actually makes people 10% more productive, and further, that getting a task done 10% faster actually means they have 10% more time that is actually used for additional tasks. And more bluntly: I think if it actually were happening, it'd be a lot more plainly obvious to all of us. The pressure from the C-suite to integrate AI into our workflows has been widely noted.
- bluefirebrand 1y ago
  It would be insanely obvious if this was actually happening but instead we are seeing a massive economic downturn So it's all fairy tales and unicorn farts as far as I'm concerned