But Oracle could relatively easily be broken up and sold off. Essentially all of the global consulting business units could sell to competitors in the various niches, the hardware business and the cloud hosting business could be separated, etc.
Plenty of companies worldwide would be up for buying pieces of Oracle at a bargain price.
"Too big to fail" only really applies in extreme circumstances (which might happen, admittedly) and with essentially monolithic businesses (or banking).
I don't think even Microsoft is too big to fail.
And I don't think people should casually entertain the idea that really any tech industry company is too big to fail, because tech corporations that cannot die point the way to a Rollerball future.
Ah yes, fire to rehire via the model training gig economy
They're going to flip us all like burger patties eventually - we're done on this side.
> Oracle shed about 21,000 roles globally in the last year as the US technology giant reshapes its business around artificial intelligence (AI), the firm's latest annual report shows.
Seems possible to flatten out a company, in a way the domain knowledge is kept.
That being said, I haven't seen many layoffs that actually seem directly AI related, because the main effects are not hiring junior Devs, and not outsourcing to low cost/skill areas.
However, if you are oracle sending out consultants with zero domain knowledge around to help.... I would rather just use claude.
All in the all-mighty fiduciary duty to your investors of course.
I'm inclined to believe that its no longer the case of employees being replaced by AI but simply those businesses being replaced by AI and the current businesses who were able to benefit from AI are reaping the momentum they have but eventually this will end.
Open source databases have already been doing this for decades. You can’t just clone its products and expect to eliminate it. Oracle is driven by a strong sales culture and ruthless business strategy.
These companies seem to be led by mind bogglingly short sighted people. Maybe they should be replaced by AI. It can't possibly get any worse than now, right?
[1] https://www.hrgrapevine.com/us/content/article/2026-02-11-ai...
>I made it up. It was invented by a writer.
They are justifying that on commitments (500+B USD), but 300B of those are tied to OpenAI. So, if OpenAI goes belly up or at least doesn't follow their crazy growth projections, they would have to find the same amount of consumption quickly to repay the interest on said debt and eventually the principal.
It is a lot of money for a company the size of Oracle (~500B market cap).
[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/oracle-500...
So the predictive autocomplete will survive those too.
And that is not even considering how much it costs to run AI right now at scale AND retraining people to use the new tools AND possible disruption in existing workflows.
If I was running a large org I would actively try to slow down AI adoption in most areas until there are clear established solutions.
lordluca•1h ago
angoragoats•1h ago
jchw•1h ago
VladVladikoff•1h ago
reliabilityguy•1h ago
I am not sure we are there yet.
In my experience even the SoTA models are faaaaar away from replacing humans, maybe making them a bit faster.
repelsteeltje•53m ago
mschuster91•44m ago
When talking about bullshit jobs like, say, taking a bill received by paper and manually extracting data from it (company name, invoice number, bank account details) to enter into an accounting program, AI is already good enough according to the pareto principle.
dofm•55m ago
But we are talking about a corporation that is one of the most sociopathic in modern business history.
cm2187•27m ago
bluGill•58m ago
eagerpace•57m ago
thinkingtoilet•51m ago