Inheritance?
True, but other CEOs often like to be dramatic and the center of attention, wanting to be seen as bold, cost cutting, and at the forefront of trends, whether or not they are accurate in anything they say.
I've been around long enough to see that boldness become a source of regret at times. If someone refers to AI slop, it's widely understood what's meant. Putting slop at the center of your company personnel strategy doesn't sound quite as appealing.
The quotes at the end of the article seem more thoughtful to me, more realistic and measured.
"told investors in May that she could see its operations head count falling by 10% in the coming years as the company uses new AI tools."
Here's a time-frame a bit more specific then "in the coming years", but still vague:
"Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei said in May that half of all entry-level jobs could disappear in one to five years"
Repeating a comment I've read on HN before: Following on from cutting down entry-level jobs must imply cutting down on all those next levels up as well. Minimising the number of people coming through Gate 1 will necessarily reduce the number of people going through Gate 2 (yes, you can hire in people to go straight through Gate 2, but they'll have had to go through Gate 1 somewhere).
Followed by a huge boom in salaries once the workforce shrinks.
For example, go look at the hourly wage of a cobol programmer.
Only if the amount of employees in each level is uniform.
I.e. if there are more entry level jobs than senior that wouldn't necessary be true.
The only fields where this is not true are where the entry level pipeline has disappeared, but that’s a temporary effect because those more senior people will eventually move on also.
That someone is your co-worker and will soon be your co-worker's co-worker.
I don't see how the rate of job creation can come close to the rate job loss we'll see for a few years.
Someone using AI won't "take" your job, they'll just get more done than you and when the company inevitably fires more people because AI can continue to do more work autonomously, the first people to go will be the people not producing as much (i.e, the people not using AI).
In the limit both groups are getting their jobs taken by AI. Knowing how to use AI is not some special skill.
Other comments here say things like lower 80% will be laid off etc. but current LLMs are more like bottom 10% would be laid off, maybe.
What do you think technological advancement does?!?
It removes work.
Now, if you say that unlike for every other time there isn’t more opportunity created…I guess you have an interesting point.
But yeah — duh.
I don’t know many assembly programmers. They’ve been “wiped out.”
There never where enough assembly programmers to create all the business and leisure software we have in assembly anyway.
There are quite a few left, but they do foundational work at CPU or other hardware companies or are building compilers and runtimes others use. In other words: you're not in the same circles.
Automating, then, commoditizing, then centralizing has lead to a drastic reduction in food quality and a critically vulnerable food-supply chain.
We’ve started down a similar path where we do not know how to manufacture.
The logical conclusion isn’t just losing workers, but the science and understanding, due to short-term gains and inability to train the next generation.
I know quite a few. Turns out there’s still a lot of value in understanding how computers work.
They make enormous amounts of money reverse engineering binaries and developing exploits for sale, mostly to governments.
When I hear a CEO say this, what I hear is that they are going to use AI as an excuse to do massive layoffs to juice stock price and then cash out before the house of cards comes tumbling down. Every public company CEOs dream. The GE model in the age of AI.
Will AI drastically reshape industries and careers? Absolutely. Do currently CEOs understand or even care how (outside of making them richer in the next few quarters)? No.
CEOs are just marketing to investors with ridiculous claims because their products have stagnated. (See Benioffs recent claim that 50% of work at Salesforce is AI. Maybe that is why it sucks so much)
Its happened before, it'll happen again, and ~~Visual Basic~~ AI may or may not change the landscape. I'm not that impressed with the current guise, but after a few revisions it may be better.
We could also see CEO wages fall as their job can be done by anyone because of AI.
Literally everything hallucinated even basic things, like what named parameters a function had etc.
It made me think that the core of the benefit of LLMs is that, even though they may not be smart, at least they've read what they need to answer the question you have, but if they haven't-- if there isn't much data on the software framework, not very many examples, etc., then nothing matters, and you can't really feed in the whole of vLLM. You actually need the companies running the AI to come up with training exercises for it, train on the code, train it on answering questions about the code, ask it to write up different simple variations of things in the code, etc.
So you really need to use LLMs to see the limits, and use them on 'weird' stuff, frameworks no one imagines that anyone will mess with. Even being a researcher and fiddling with improving LLMs every day may not be enough to see their limits, because they come very suddenly and then any accuracy or relevance goes away completely.
Sure, you can have all of SalesForce run entirely by AI, but people may just find a better solution that actually works. Claude ran a vending machine after all, but it was deemed a failure.
So yeah, maybe there's a rocky month or two, and I'm not trying to downplay the severity of that...but the demand for the roles these services fulfill will still exist, and become market opportunities
AI will have taken one person’s job.
Then we can hire more on-shore faces and use them to actually deliver what we have them sell. Think of the profits. Execute.
But in most cases, LLMs will be prompted by practitioners, i.e. designers who mockup designs in Figma, engineers who generate code in their IDE - and then invariably need to correct it.
All in all, LLMs will cause an employment boom if widely adopted.
All I see is bullet points being poorly communicated through LLMs these days.
LLMs are second to none in generating somewhat believable BS, while being mediocre to absolutely abysmal in executing actual tasks. Remind you of anything?
TL;DR: We always have a choice. And as we often do, we're choosing capitalism.
The other part of that half that doesn't get wiped out will have more work while, at best, being paid the same.
Once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, all right.
sleepyguy•7mo ago
Article via Mint.