Fully agree, while people losing jobs to ai is sad, i have zero sympathies for meta employees. They knew pretty well how insidious that company is, and as you said, they are smart enough to find a good enough job in another company.
A bit off topic, but all this ai stuff replacing so many jobs is a bit baffling to me. At least for certain jobs. It’s not like in the industrial revolution where you could see tangible results in production and efficiency. Even if it come at a terrible human cost you could see the cold logic.
Here in change, they are firing good talent only to get a subpar costlier replacement.
Sure there are some places where it works, but i don’t believe it’s yet to the scale where you would fire so many people.
I suppose the wet dreams of a future with no employees is too good to pass.
I heard some statements that the “AI” justification is just on paper. Maybe partly because it’s an easy out, and/or to keep the stick bridge looking sustainable. But that it’s in reality not directly tied to any specific takeover of these individuals’ work being presently or immediately taken over, and likely not efficiently either, by software. I’m not too deep into the economy so please only regard this as speculation until you can verify.
Now that you tell me, I think i have heard about that before. It does make a bit of sense, there may be some of both things to this madness. While speculation i value the observation and i will keep it mind, thank you for sharing it.
Fully agree, while people losing jobs to ai is sad, i have zero sympathies for meta employees. They knew pretty well how insidious that company is, and as you said, they are smart enough to find a good enough job in another company.
A bit off topic, but all this ai stuff replacing so many jobs is a bit baffling to me. At least for certain jobs. It’s not like in the industrial revolution where you could see tangible results in production and efficiency. Even if it come at a terrible human cost you could see the cold logic.
Here in change, they are firing good talent only to get a subpar costlier replacement. Sure there are some places where it works, but i don’t believe it’s yet to the scale where you would fire so many people.
I suppose the wet dreams of a future with no employees is too good to pass.
I heard some statements that the “AI” justification is just on paper. Maybe partly because it’s an easy out, and/or to keep the stick bridge looking sustainable. But that it’s in reality not directly tied to any specific takeover of these individuals’ work being presently or immediately taken over, and likely not efficiently either, by software. I’m not too deep into the economy so please only regard this as speculation until you can verify.
Now that you tell me, I think i have heard about that before. It does make a bit of sense, there may be some of both things to this madness. While speculation i value the observation and i will keep it mind, thank you for sharing it.
Savings on salaries means more profit next quarter. Line must go up.