CEOs love automation, but don't think humans and machines can coexist in the workforce, survey finds.
  • Dryad@lemmy.worldEnglish
    8 minutes

    5% of those layoffs will actually be AI related. The other 95% will be profits related.

  • gravediggersbiscuit@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    5 hours

    This type of reporting is frustrating and I really should get off the internet.

    These surveys are done by consultanting companies that have large investment holdings. For example in this report one of the surveys is from Mercer, who has an investment wing that has a AUM (asset under management) 1 of $727 Bn according to their website 2. Would there potentially be any sort of chance someone like Mercer never put out a survey that goes against the bullish market driven by AI speculation? Obviously journalists won’t think about these things anymore because that will effect their click rate.

    1. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/aum.asp
    2. https://www.mercer.com/solutions/investments/
  • melfie@lemmy.zipEnglish
    8 hours

    Correction: 99% of CEOs are planning to use AI as an excuse to layoff employees to juice quarterly profits. They have zero accountability and golden parachutes, so no skin off of their asses.

    • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8 hours

      And the stock price bumps from layoffs mean they effectively get to just hand themselves huge raises.

      • piecat@lemmy.worldEnglish
        40 minutes

        Then parachute and let some other schmuck deal with the fallout

  • MSids@lemmy.worldEnglish
    5 hours

    Who are they expecting to sell stuff to if everyone is unemployed and fighting over an ever decreasing piece of the pie?

    • Lemminary@lemmy.worldEnglish
      52 minutes

      everyone is unemployed and fighting over an ever decreasing piece of the pie?

      Roasted CEO

  • anon_8675309@lemmy.worldEnglish
    6 hours

    That’s okay. I will choose not to participate in your new economy beyond buying essentials like food.

  • k0e3@lemmy.caEnglish
    8 hours

    Anyone know of any publicly traded guillotine producers? I’d like to invest early.

  • Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.worldEnglish
    13 hours

    Clarification - these are management driven layoffs. AI doesn’t drive anything, managers replace people with it.

    • andallthat@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8 hours

      well, not in the sense of “layoffs because AI can do those jobs”, but still AI-driven in the sense of “AI did most of the actual grunt work of laying off those people”.

      If there is a repetitive and predictable activity that can be automated at this point it’s layoffs. Announcements and internal talking points are already clearly LLM-generated.

      • Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2 hours

        “Did” is an interesting word. If somebody dug a ditch I wouldn’t say the shovel “did” the grunt work.

  • CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.worldEnglish
    4 hours

    I expect 99% of CEOs to get laid off. They are too lazy, expensive and don’t want to work. They have a ridiculous sense of entitlement. Ripe for automation.

    • nucleative@lemmy.worldEnglish
      13 hours

      When you say CEOs are you thinking of guys who are making millions with staff living on almost nothing?

    • Clbull@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1 hour

      I think it’s only a matter of time.

      Waymo already exists in some parts of the US and is being trialled in Atlanta and London. Miso Robotics already can automate manual work in kitchens and have their bots rolled out in fast food chains like White Castle. Claude is miles ahead of competitors in terms of output quality, and there are probably a lot of AI slop content creators making absolute bank from YouTube, Instagram and TikTok.

      Optimus 3 will be released soon and at a predicted price of $30,000 per robot, it could potentially lead to mass layoffs in warehouses. Because remember, robots don’t get tired, don’t need food, don’t need water, don’t need to piss, don’t need to shit, won’t complain about OSHA violations, and don’t need a paycheck. All that matters is work quality and price

      According to some accounts, China are apparently even further ahead than the US in terms of AI and robotics, but they’re deliberately holding back their rollout of humanoid robots and self-driving vehicles because they know a wide rollout will lead to mass unemployment and civil unrest.

      A big part of the reason AI spend is so expensive is because there’s this huge arms race to throw gargantuan amounts of computing power in the hopes of achieving AGI that way. While I think AGI may be bullshit and unachievable, I think they’ll eventually turn a profit once they stop focusing on throwing trillions at data centres.

    • squaresinger@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8 hours

      Including Nvidia in the revenue figure is like asking “Is playing in a casino profitable” and including the revenue of the house in the stats.

      • k0e3@lemmy.caEnglish
        8 hours

        I dunno there are some people who have bankrupted multiple casinos.

      • andallthat@lemmy.worldEnglish
        5 hours

        but even so, the total including the house is still very negative, here. It would be like… I don’t know, I can’t think of anyone in their right mind who could bankrupt a casino 😜

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.caEnglish
      12 hours

      spend

      Was the site built by coke-addled used-car salesmen on their break?

      • sunbeam60@feddit.ukEnglish
        6 hours

        Not just that - it confuses several financial terms.

        CAPEX is one time spend. Revenue is recurring. Take Microsoft, as just one example: They are stuffed with cash abroad - they only bring it home when there’s a moratorium; until then it just sits and waits. It’s much cheaper for Microsoft to spend it outside the US than to take it home - CAPEX that can happen outside the US is often welcomed by the big stock companies as it puts the money to work.

        Revenue happens every year. It’s like saying “is this banana stand profitable?” and then answering by saying “well the shed cost 10 dollars and the bananas sell for 5c”. You need more information to understand whether those are good or bad numbers.

        And I know - there’s always money in the banana stand!

    • DacoTaco@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11 hours

      That really shows who profits from all of this and i can only hope that company would implode

    • Lon3star@lemmy.worldEnglish
      16 hours

      Exactly this… Even ones actually attributed to AI will likely be an overreach that won’t be realized until after a person’s life has been totally upended… Shit’s gonna be bleak

    • masterspace@lemmy.caEnglish
      16 hours

      This is too dismissive.

      Industrialization and automation has already eliminated an entire class of work that was otherwise there.

      In a hunter gathered society or an early industrial society there was always work for everyone, in modern capitalist society, there quite frankly isn’t, and that leads to huge numbers of people just being cast aside.

      And AI may wipe out a huge number of the rest. I genuinely can’t possibly fathom how it will do anything but exacerbate every single one of society’s problems.

      • Clbull@lemmy.worldEnglish
        60 minutes

        The industrial revolution created loads of new jobs in manufacturing, logistics, distribution, procurement and transport.

        The digital revolution created loads of IT, cybersecurity and programming jobs.

        AI removes most if not all the human labour from the equation if it functions properly. What new jobs has the AI revolution created or will create? Because last I checked, “prompt engineer” is not a job title. I can’t even find any fucking jobs for it anywhere from a LinkedIn search.

        (sigh)

        I’d prefer tech-bros pushing crypto, Web3 and NFTs to something that can actually cause mass unemployment and societal collapse.

        And AI may wipe out a huge number of the rest. I genuinely can’t possibly fathom how it will do anything but exacerbate every single one of society’s problems.

        I can see things going one of two ways:

        1. Society gets its shit together, uses AI, robotics and sweeping economic reforms to build new infrastructure and create an abundance of resources. Housing shortages, hunger, thirst and famine become a thing of the past, we move towards a post-scarcity utopia.

        2. The far more likely scenario. Mass unemployment leads to civil unrest, quelled through violence. Existing UAV technology and future advances in military robotics and AI make it alarmingly easy to kill en masse. The poor, the unemployed, the sick and everybody else disenfranchised by the AI revolution and the corporate takeover of the world is culled in a genocide that would make the Holocaust look insignificant.

      • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.clubEnglish
        6 hours

        There is a question of timeline. Maybe in 10+ years, but not 2.

        The early wave of layoffs in the sector “due to AI” were at the same time as the interest rate went up, pushing all tech companies to start focusing on profit. A lot of unprofitable divisions were cut because it stopped making financial sense to invest in products that didn’t have day 1 revenue.

        You’re now seeing companies doing layoffs and claiming AI to either hide that development in their companies have stalled or they are taking advantage of their new shiny remote work platforms to push wages down by shifting workers to places with lower cost of living.

        AI labor isn’t worth its tokens, even when they are heavily discounted to gain market share. It might be in a decade, but not now.

      • mabeledo@lemmy.worldEnglish
        7 hours

        I keep seeing these comments where AI is hailed as the next industrial revolution, but I think they all miss the point.

        Industrialization created jobs. There were fewer skilled jobs lost than new skilled jobs created. It then created the need for more knowledge based jobs, like civil engineers.

        The AI lobby is doing the opposite. It targets higher paid skilled jobs. If they were to succeed, they would give birth to the opposite of the Industrial Revolution.

      • dexa_scantron@lemmy.worldEnglish
        15 hours

        LLMs are not and will never be good enough to replace human labor. Augment it, sure, and that could lead to fewer jobs but that’s not generally what happens. They are, however, good enough for execs to think they can replace human labor.

        • BarneyPiccolo@lemmings.worldEnglish
          9 hours

          The AI won’t replace labor, automation/robotics will do that. AI will provide the brain to operate the automation properly. We’ve had the automation for a long time, the AI is making the difference.

          They are working very hard on the intersection of AI and Automation to replace human labor.

        • JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyzEnglish
          13 hours

          The AI doesn’t need to be better than the professional it’s replacing, it just needs to be more cost effective than the barely capable outsourced worker the jobs was going to be given anyway.

          • CommanderCloon@lemmy.mlEnglish
            6 hours

            Not really, because when an employee fails their task it’s the employee’s responsibility, and if it’s catastrophic enough it can lead to firings or lawsuits. But as soon as it’s a chatbot, the liability fully rests on the company. How long will insurance protect those companies too?

          • farting_gorilla@lemmy.worldEnglish
            12 hours

            It even can be a feature if AI isn’t as good as the people they are replacing. For example, in the case of call centers/help lines, it might be more desirable to have a shitty system to discourage callers yet have plausible deniability…

            I find I’m referencing Cory Doctorow a lot lately…

            • Xaphanos@lemmy.worldEnglish
              9 hours

              I was in a meeting at a credit card company about 2 decades ago where a VP said exactly that - without the AI part.

  • Darthcapi@lemmy.mlEnglish
    16 hours

    I guess the office leases weren’t THAT important after all

  • Arrandee@lemmy.worldEnglish
    17 hours

    You know, a year ago people in charge were all, like nooo we’re not going to fire people and pocket the payroll savings

    When did we cross the line where everybody stopped lying? I mean, our vaunted business leaders dropping the bullshit is welcome, even if its bad news… but the interesting bit is in the collective, unconscious decision to just own up to this as the likeliest future.

    • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      15 hours

      The Trump admin has emboldened the entire upper echelons of society to drop pretense because enough of society is stupid enough to always buy it even if its painfully obvious that they are lying. They feel untouchable with their buddies in charge.

      • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        5 hours

        Exactly - the more easilly the “riff-raff” is to swindle or the less capable they are to push back, the more intensely and shamelessly the “upper” classes take advantage of the rest.

        You don’t just see it in the historical trends (such as ever more reduced levels of broad representativeness of elected politicians in for example the US or Britain), you also see it across nations: for example after the 2008 Crash, the wealthy in France (with its tradition of public rebellion) were actually saying they should be taxed MORE, whilst the wealthy in England (whose closest to “public” rebellion ever was the Barons rebelling against the King leading to the Magna Carta) were openly lobbying the Government to be taxed LESS (and got what they asked for, with Britain endind up in Austerity, with the anger caused by it being successfully redirected against Immigrants and The EU, hence Brexit, so the wealthy were totally right in not fearing the “riff-raff”).

        PS: that spirit of not provoking the streets of wealthy French did not survive the Macron years, especially once he won against the “Gilet Jaunes” (Yellow Vests).