• jcarax@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    As someone who works for a very large company, on a team with around 500 people around the world, this is what concerns me. Our team will not be 500 people in a few years, and if it is, it’s because usage of our product has grown substantially. We are buying heavily into AI, and yet people are buying it when our leadership teams claim it will not impact jobs.

    Will I be able to take a unit of 2 people down to 0 people? No, I’ve never seen a process where I could eliminate every human.

    Socially speaking, this is also very concerning to me. I’m afraid that implementation of AI will be yet another thing that makes it difficult for smaller businesses to compete in a global marketplace. Yes, a tech-minded company can leverage a smaller head count into more capabilities, but this typically requires more expensive and limiting turnkey solutions, or major investment into developers of a customized solution.

    • mozz@mbin.grits.devOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      I honestly have no idea what the solution is. To me the issue is that with technology where it is, only about 20% of us actually have to do any work to keep all the wheels turning and provide for everyone. So far, in the western world, the solution has been to occupy people with increasingly-bullshit jobs (and, for some reason, not giving a lot of people who do the actual work enough to live on), but as technology keeps getting more and more powerful we’re more and more being faced with the limits of “you have to work to live” as a way to set things up.

      • lad@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        The solution to both bullshit jobs and no life could have been to downscale work time not amount of people. If 20% of people is enough to do the job, maybe it’s better to keep everyone but let them work only 20% of time?

        That won’t pass the shareholders’ vote, of course, because optimization must only mean “money optimization”