A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
Seems like it's time to buy wooden shoes and sand for all those new gears.
"We are not replacing anyones job, this is just saving time" is something we keep hearing at work, if its saving time that means fewer people are required. I am sure it won't replace 100% of any 1 persons entire workload any time soon, but if it replaced 20% of 10 peoples workload, HR will make 4 of those people redundant and spread their tasks among the 6 remaining now increasingly overworked employees.
My job recently shifted me to a new task. The hired 4 or 5 people to do my old work.
What I'm trying to say is that they'll fire as many people as they want and or say that even though the work is being done "more efficiently" they'll just offload more and more work onto employees anyways and do whatever they can to pay them less
The story is ultimately the same as it ever was: Businesses are looking for ways to make employees work harder while paying them less. But now an editor can be told to fix an AI-mangled manuscript and paid less... Because the business class has fallen under a collective delusion that the AI is actually good at its job.
They don't care if it's good at the job, just cheaper and they can get away with claiming its good enough
Going to have to challenge the math here ... 20% of 10 is two, not four. Granted, HR may cull four anyway, but in terms of what LLMs can currently do, HR is a perfect thing to replace. Literally all they do is follow rules to benefit the company. Sounds a bit like coding to me ...
While it is correct and totally fair to challenge the math, I believe that's the kind of math that HR typically does. They were planning on getting rid of people already, now they can get rid of more.
Given that LLMs are so bad at math maybe they would be the best fit for job. It would be a nice change of pace because I've never been able to convince HR to give me more money on my paycheck, but I could definitely convince an LLM to do so.
now increasingly overworked employees
My point was that HR will replace some of the workload, and remove more of the workers. Then those remaining get lumped with an even greater workload than they had before.
Tale as old as time.
Let's say AI increases productivity by 10%. So you'd reduce staff by one person out of every ten. But how many teams actually have ten people on them? My biggest development teams might've had 10 between PM, devs, and QA. But again cut one of your five devs and you reduce capacity, not increase it.
I've never worked anywhere that a 10% increase in productivity could justify cutting a person. I'm sure those places are out there, but it seems uncommon.
It might let them cut staff off they can overwork their people that much more, but a lot of people are stretched to capacity even now.
There's slack time in people's daily work hours. You work an 8 hour day, possibly you're only actually productive for 4 to 6 hours.
Take that into account and suddenly that thing that claims it can cut an hour or two here and there gets a lot more interesting.