cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/53520498
You must log in or register to comment.
- JackFrostNCola@aussie.zoneEnglish13 days
Alternative name for the stat:
Jobs laid off where struggling company used AI as a scapegoat. 
13 daysI honestly don’t believe it. I think they’re laying people off to mislead investors into thinking the AI can do their jobs, because that’s an enormous amount of expenses that would be cut, and thus an enormous increase in profits, if it were true.
Yeah, I’ve seen a number of articles talking about how if a company isn’t doing well and needs to do layoffs that it’s a better narrative for investors that savings were found via AI. Then it’s not a “company is doing poorly” story, but a “company is forward-thinking” one.
Like, there are real layoffs that have happened and are induced by AI, but I’d also be pretty confident in saying that it’s not all of the ones where leadership is citing AI.
- flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyzEnglish13 days
We’re in a huge recession, masked by inflated stock numbers.
Very few businesses are doing good, unless they’re sucking investor money via AI promises.
- ishartdoritos@lemmy.zipEnglish13 days
Ironic that the website is the most vibe coded looking thing ever.
- acchariya@lemmy.worldEnglish13 days
If you get laid off just vibe code a competitor using your institutional and architectural knowledge, then undercut your former employer with customers you already know.
- CosmoNova@lemmy.worldEnglish13 days
Many companies have a clause that strictly forbids exactly this behavior for at least a year, sometimes longer.
- Buckshot@programming.devEnglish13 days
My first thought. Everything is going to look the same soon isn’t it
- mHtt@lemmy.caEnglish13 days
glad i switched from IT to post office 15 years ago. still rocking the infosec.
the writing has been an the wall for a while.
- Zarobi@aussie.zoneEnglish13 days
Refuse to use LLMs; don’t use / train your replacement. Change careers, pivot to something you can’t be replaced by LLMs. Could still be programming in an industry that doesn’t use them for privacy or security reasons.
Not using LLMs (and other tools) isn’t realistic. The proverbial toothpaste is already out of the tube, sadly. There aren’t going to be many/any industries that won’t be using them in some way.
I think the more realistic option is to use them in a responsible way and advocate for that.
- 13 days
“AI” is as much, maybe more of, a political tool in the corporate environment as it is a technical tool. Outright refusing to use LLM’s will result in you being replaced with someone who will get on board and you will find yourself wedged in a very narrow career path that is increasingly difficult to get out of.
LLM’a are not going to replace programmers. Not in the long term anyway. It’s really hurting opportunities for junior devs right now. There’s no denying that. But any idiot can write code. And LLM’s are just one more idiot in a long line of idiots, shelling out code without having one iota of actual knowledge around the problem its supposed to be solving.
I’m not saying there aren’t hills to die on and I’m not saying there won’t be negative long term consequences to the current “AI” craze. I just don’t think this is the hill. And just wait until management teams everywhere finally realize that, in order for LLM’s to be even remotely successful as a business tool, they have to do one thing that programmers have been trying and failing to get them to do for the last 50+ years: give us the goddamned fucking business requirements. Executives everywhere will backpedal so fast they’ll pull their collective hamstrings. “WhAt Do YoU mEaN its NoT a MaGiC box tHaT jUsT tElLs us hOw To MaKe mAkE mOrE mOnEy???”
- theherk@lemmy.worldEnglish13 days
They’re used now throughout healthcare, banking, and defense. So even among some of the most regulated and privacy-conscious spaces, many are using these tools. Refusing to use them outright is a sensible position, but it is going to get more and more difficult.
They say they lay people off because AI does the job better (59% of 97). Doesn’t mean very much.
