"Firms don't appear to be replacing workers with AI on a significant scale," the firm said. It suspects some are trying to "dress up layoffs" as good news.
Firms are trying to dress up layoffs as a good news story rather than bad news as attributing staff reductions to AI adoption conveys a more positive message to investors.
“If AI were already replacing labour at scale, productivity growth should be accelerating
There are headlines that suggest high productivity numbers, but tech capex now being 2% of GDP can be a big mask for those headlines. The way productivity is measured is sales divided by employment costs. Auto sector or insurance companies don’t have a genuine productivity boost if cars and insurance just cost more without employees making more of it.
Overpaying for GPUs, power, and datacenter construction are fairly low employment activities, GPUs being made overseas at extreme revenue per kg is something that would especially skew productivity numbers. Any growth in datacenter revenue is also something accomplished with few employees, and their customers are not necessarily boosting their revenues/employee.
I wish. They are simply doing layoffs because investors ask why they haven’t, yet, since everyone else has done them. Has the CEO not done AI enough? Is he (theoretical possibility: she) behind the times? Shouldn’t all the investment in AI not finally pay off in RIFs?
We need AI NOW! And we need AI layoffs NOW! It’s the season, it’s the fashion.
In the ancient days, they said “You can’t get fired for picking IBM.” Nowadays, a CEO can’t get fired anyway, but there is a huge incentive to pile on another “AI initiative.”
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
Important theory.
There are headlines that suggest high productivity numbers, but tech capex now being 2% of GDP can be a big mask for those headlines. The way productivity is measured is sales divided by employment costs. Auto sector or insurance companies don’t have a genuine productivity boost if cars and insurance just cost more without employees making more of it.
Overpaying for GPUs, power, and datacenter construction are fairly low employment activities, GPUs being made overseas at extreme revenue per kg is something that would especially skew productivity numbers. Any growth in datacenter revenue is also something accomplished with few employees, and their customers are not necessarily boosting their revenues/employee.
The article mentions it’s possibly due to “over hiring” in the past.
There’s an obsession companies have where they have to try out being leaner than is efficient.
But I have a feeling it’s even worse. Companies are manufacturing a bad job market, so they can under pay employees and treat them worse.
It’s both, but mostly the latter.
I wish. They are simply doing layoffs because investors ask why they haven’t, yet, since everyone else has done them. Has the CEO not done AI enough? Is he (theoretical possibility: she) behind the times? Shouldn’t all the investment in AI not finally pay off in RIFs?
We need AI NOW! And we need AI layoffs NOW! It’s the season, it’s the fashion.
In the ancient days, they said “You can’t get fired for picking IBM.” Nowadays, a CEO can’t get fired anyway, but there is a huge incentive to pile on another “AI initiative.”