Even in "AI psychosis" I don't see how firing people is a logical response to advances in AI.

If AI tools really are a significant multiplier to productivity, companies should be hiring more people to take advantage of that multiplier.

If you suddenly have the ability to get more output per dollar spent, a healthy business should respond by spending more dollars, not spending less to keep output the same.

▲

33MHz-i486 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

because demand is weak and the product markets are saturated. there are dimishing returns to increasing investment. so these companies switch to managing their earnings ratio. if you cant grow revenue, then cut costs.

	▲	MeetingsBrowser 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		But that’s not what they are claiming. > our business is strong. gross profit continues to grow, we continue to serve more and more customers The implied claim is that they have more work to do but need fewer people to do the extra work effectively

▲

simianwords 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

at every productivity point there's an optimal number of employees needed.

at the previous productivity it was 10,000 employees. not 10,001 nor 9,999.

at the current productivity it is 6,000.

why are you so sure that the 6,001th employee can increase profits but not the 10,001th employee before AI?