3 ms·

It’s mostly manufactured hype to keep the AI bubble going. Nearly all the tech layoffs are simply companies trimming fat that was there the whole time. Outside

by cmiles8 5mo ago

It’s mostly manufactured hype to keep the AI bubble going. Nearly all the tech layoffs are simply companies trimming fat that was there the whole time. Outside the tech bubble folks have increasing disdain towards AI and can smell AI generated content from a mile away. The tech is cool, and useful, but massively overhyped. Now there’s a mad rush for companies to IPO before the music stops.

josefritzishere 5mo ago
I think this is spot-on. AI frankly isn't good enough to replace people en mass. It may never be. The limits of the technology seem self evident. It's useful, but it's not magic.
- hn_throwaway_99 5mo ago
  What's that saying that goes something like "People tend to vastly overestimate the impact of technology in the short run, and vastly underestimate its impact in the long run." A lot of these comments here are making feel disdain for both extremes of the debate. I agree that AI has been used as an excuse for a lot of layoffs, but it also unambiguously has resulted in real layoffs - the Washington Post ran an article years ago, a few months after ChatGPT came out, about how some copywriters had been replaced by AI. The technology isn't magic, it has limitations, but it's not that hard to see a large percentage of current jobs being made obsolete by AI - the BLS has already identified many such roles; https://www.inc.com/soren-kaplan/the-bureau-of-labor-statistics-just-flagged-18-jobs-ai-is-already-shrinking-is-yours-on-the-list/91346529 https://www.inc.com/soren-kaplan/the-bureau-of-labor-statist... I don't think it will kill all white color jobs, but on the other side, declaring it a nothing burger seems like a lot of willful blindness given it already has replaced some people and AI's capabilities have grown legions since then.
- palmotea 5mo ago
  > I think this is spot-on. AI frankly isn't good enough to replace people en mass. It doesn't actually need to be good enough for people to make decisions like it is good enough. My SO left her previous job because a McKinsey spreadsheet had fanciful notions of how deeply they could do job cuts in her org. The remaining team was so overwhelmed that most people quit up to some ridiculously high management level. So you might have people replaced en-mass, due to leaders believing the hype. Maybe they correct for it a little, but not enough to dial in to the reality.

by cmiles8 5mo ago

josefritzishere 5mo ago

I think this is spot-on. AI frankly isn't good enough to replace people en mass. It may never be. The limits of the technology seem self evident. It's useful, but it's not magic.

hn_throwaway_99 5mo ago
What's that saying that goes something like "People tend to vastly overestimate the impact of technology in the short run, and vastly underestimate its impact in the long run." A lot of these comments here are making feel disdain for both extremes of the debate. I agree that AI has been used as an excuse for a lot of layoffs, but it also unambiguously has resulted in real layoffs - the Washington Post ran an article years ago, a few months after ChatGPT came out, about how some copywriters had been replaced by AI. The technology isn't magic, it has limitations, but it's not that hard to see a large percentage of current jobs being made obsolete by AI - the BLS has already identified many such roles; https://www.inc.com/soren-kaplan/the-bureau-of-labor-statistics-just-flagged-18-jobs-ai-is-already-shrinking-is-yours-on-the-list/91346529 https://www.inc.com/soren-kaplan/the-bureau-of-labor-statist... I don't think it will kill all white color jobs, but on the other side, declaring it a nothing burger seems like a lot of willful blindness given it already has replaced some people and AI's capabilities have grown legions since then.
palmotea 5mo ago
> I think this is spot-on. AI frankly isn't good enough to replace people en mass. It doesn't actually need to be good enough for people to make decisions like it is good enough. My SO left her previous job because a McKinsey spreadsheet had fanciful notions of how deeply they could do job cuts in her org. The remaining team was so overwhelmed that most people quit up to some ridiculously high management level. So you might have people replaced en-mass, due to leaders believing the hype. Maybe they correct for it a little, but not enough to dial in to the reality.