Discounting the evidence of it being explicitly cited as a reason for layoffs and that its purpose to business is to replace human labor, there's no evidence that its replacing human labor. Got it.

▲

int_19h 7 days ago | parent | next [-]

In the case of Microsoft layoffs, that is how it is sold to the public, but the reality according to my former colleagues is that fewer people tasked with the same amount of overall work just end up grinding more. But the charade must be sustained, and so now "how much do you use AI" is one of the performance metrics pushed from the top. Nobody wants to be in the next layoff wave so everybody finds ways to meet those metrics, which then Satya goes and parades to the investors.

(I am an AI optimist, by the by. But that is not one of its success stories.)

	▲	agent_turtle 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		My partner works at MSFT and I can confirm this.

▲

rockemsockem 7 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Citing AI for layoffs is great cover for "we over hired during Covid".

There probably are a few nuts out there that actually fired people to be replaced with AI, I feel like that won't go well for them

There really is no evidence.

	▲	no_wizard 7 days ago \| parent [-]
		There's strong sentiment bubbling that supports AI driven layoffs are going to happen or are happening[0]. I'll say its okay to be reserved on this, since we won't know until after the fact, but give it 6-12 months, then we'll know for sure. Until then, I see no reason not to believe there is a culture in the boardrooms forming around AI that is driving closed door conversations about reducing headcount specifically to be replaced by AI. [0]: https://gizmodo.com/the-end-of-work-as-we-know-it-2000635294