4 ms·

I don't understand anyone who says layoffs are due to improvements in AI tooling. "Thanks to LLMs, each worker can do twice the work they could before. Natural

I don't understand anyone who says layoffs are due to improvements in AI tooling. "Thanks to LLMs, each worker can do twice the work they could before. Naturally we are firing half the company because ... business is good and ... too much productivity is bad?"

Refreeze5224 8mo ago
It's simple: it's just a lie. We are seeing the goal of AI in action here, which is reducing payroll costs.
- djeekle 8mo ago
  Since the rush for AGI isn’t panning out, I can see tech firms engaging in tacit collusion that aims to reduce the salaries of software engineers. There’s proof of tech firms engaging in explicit collusion back in the 00’s.
- MeetingsBrowser 8mo ago
  I also don't understand that take. Imagine you run a mowing service with 4 employees. Suddenly 2 more people volunteer to mow yard for your company for free! Is your reaction to fire two of the paid employees and keep mowing the same number of yards (with reduced payroll costs), or to expand the business to mow more yards? Which of those responses feels more in line with a "strong and growing" business that is "continuing to support more customers" and has "improving profitability"?
  - xeckr 8mo ago
    Now imagine you run a mowing service with 4 employees. Suddenly an unbounded number of people appear on the job market who are ready to work for your company at a 5% the cost of your previous employees. Best of all, they become more competent and less expensive over time. You can't yet fire your entire original roster all at once since they need to teach the new hires the specifics of the job, but after that's done, what do you need them for?
    - MeetingsBrowser 8mo ago
      No sane person is claiming AI can fully replace a human worker today. It is a productivity multiplier at least for now.
      - xeckr 8mo ago
        How do you square (heh) this with Jack Dorsey axing nearly half of Block's headcount?
        MeetingsBrowser 8mo ago
        That is my point exactly. The action and the explanation don't make sense together.
      - siva7 8mo ago
        > No sane person is claiming AI can fully replace a human worker today. You must be living under a rock..
        MeetingsBrowser 8mo ago
        Can you name a single reputable business that has stated they fully replaced a human worker with AI?
  - Refreeze5224 8mo ago
    A fundamental attribute of capitalism is that labor costs are a regrettable cost center, and any reduction in labor costs without a resulting loss in profit/perceived productivity is a big win. AI is a big win for capitalists, and not so much for anyone who is now suddenly "made redundant". And since we treat shareholder value as sacred and inviolate, too bad for workers who lose their job in this deal.
  - d0100 8mo ago
    If you apply Pareto to productivity, you can fire a lot of people and still manage
simianwords 8mo ago
> Thanks to LLMs, each worker can do twice the work they could before. Naturally we are firing half the company because ... business is good and ... too much productivity is bad this is an incorrect take. The company needs a certain amount of productivity at each point. If not, how would you explain that they had only 10,000 employees and not 20,000? They could still remain profitable. LLM's increased productivity and each person could do approximately 20% more work so it follows that they need fewer people. If not, they should have had 12,000 to begin with.
- retinaros 8mo ago
  it does not work like that except in a berkeley mba mind
- sealeck 8mo ago
  > The company needs a certain amount of productivity at each point. Um, no?
- johnnienaked 8mo ago
  "they should not have had 12,000 to begin with" Nailed it
- MeetingsBrowser 8mo ago
  I agree if they weren’t simultaneously claiming to be a successful growing company. > they should have had 12,000 to begin with This is how successful growing companies work. They hire as many people as they can afford. Those people bring in more money to hire more people, and repeat. A successful growing company has more opportunity than resources. Reducing resources while also claiming to have un-captured opportunity makes no sense
- geraneum 8mo ago
  > If not, how would you explain that they had only 10,000 employees and not 20,000? Simple, 1000+ salaries > 10000 x100$/m Claude seats.
boxingdog 8mo ago
[dead]

Refreeze5224 8mo ago

It's simple: it's just a lie. We are seeing the goal of AI in action here, which is reducing payroll costs.

djeekle 8mo ago
Since the rush for AGI isn’t panning out, I can see tech firms engaging in tacit collusion that aims to reduce the salaries of software engineers. There’s proof of tech firms engaging in explicit collusion back in the 00’s.
MeetingsBrowser 8mo ago
I also don't understand that take. Imagine you run a mowing service with 4 employees. Suddenly 2 more people volunteer to mow yard for your company for free! Is your reaction to fire two of the paid employees and keep mowing the same number of yards (with reduced payroll costs), or to expand the business to mow more yards? Which of those responses feels more in line with a "strong and growing" business that is "continuing to support more customers" and has "improving profitability"?
- xeckr 8mo ago
  Now imagine you run a mowing service with 4 employees. Suddenly an unbounded number of people appear on the job market who are ready to work for your company at a 5% the cost of your previous employees. Best of all, they become more competent and less expensive over time. You can't yet fire your entire original roster all at once since they need to teach the new hires the specifics of the job, but after that's done, what do you need them for?
  - MeetingsBrowser 8mo ago
    No sane person is claiming AI can fully replace a human worker today. It is a productivity multiplier at least for now.
    - xeckr 8mo ago
      How do you square (heh) this with Jack Dorsey axing nearly half of Block's headcount?
      - MeetingsBrowser 8mo ago
        That is my point exactly. The action and the explanation don't make sense together.
    - siva7 8mo ago
      > No sane person is claiming AI can fully replace a human worker today. You must be living under a rock..
      - MeetingsBrowser 8mo ago
        Can you name a single reputable business that has stated they fully replaced a human worker with AI?
- Refreeze5224 8mo ago
  A fundamental attribute of capitalism is that labor costs are a regrettable cost center, and any reduction in labor costs without a resulting loss in profit/perceived productivity is a big win. AI is a big win for capitalists, and not so much for anyone who is now suddenly "made redundant". And since we treat shareholder value as sacred and inviolate, too bad for workers who lose their job in this deal.
- d0100 8mo ago
  If you apply Pareto to productivity, you can fire a lot of people and still manage

simianwords 8mo ago

> Thanks to LLMs, each worker can do twice the work they could before. Naturally we are firing half the company because ... business is good and ... too much productivity is bad this is an incorrect take. The company needs a certain amount of productivity at each point. If not, how would you explain that they had only 10,000 employees and not 20,000? They could still remain profitable. LLM's increased productivity and each person could do approximately 20% more work so it follows that they need fewer people. If not, they should have had 12,000 to begin with.

retinaros 8mo ago
it does not work like that except in a berkeley mba mind
sealeck 8mo ago
> The company needs a certain amount of productivity at each point. Um, no?
johnnienaked 8mo ago
"they should not have had 12,000 to begin with" Nailed it
MeetingsBrowser 8mo ago
I agree if they weren’t simultaneously claiming to be a successful growing company. > they should have had 12,000 to begin with This is how successful growing companies work. They hire as many people as they can afford. Those people bring in more money to hire more people, and repeat. A successful growing company has more opportunity than resources. Reducing resources while also claiming to have un-captured opportunity makes no sense
geraneum 8mo ago
> If not, how would you explain that they had only 10,000 employees and not 20,000? Simple, 1000+ salaries > 10000 x100$/m Claude seats.

boxingdog 8mo ago

[dead]