> It isn't as if there are enough projects around to keep the other 2/3 busy, so eventually when there are enough of those people on bench they have to find something else.

Eh, are they doing that though?

Anecdotally, firing people “on the bench” isn't whats happening.

Read the tweets. Listen to people still working at these big corps. They are gutting teams and pushing more work onto people because they believe they can be more productive, not because they are.

Lets that sink in.

People are being made redundant on the basis that leadership believes that in the future they will have an over capacity and theyre cutting early to avoid the bench scenario.

It is speculative.

What this article is arguing, is that, that is stupid.

If, in the future, you need to spin up new initiatives, youve screwed yourself by disposing of your excess capacity in the magical hope that your current capacity will magically increase itself by … spending more money on tokens.

Its just nonsense.

AI is just an excuse for poor historical decisions and unfortunate global economic conditions.

The “cuts due to AI” will be real. There will be people sitting idle as the models improve and people learn to use them better.

… but right now?

they're not. Im not. My friends arent. My former work mates arent. The people left at these companies arent. The people being cut werent (except perhaps, at meta)

Its stock price hype theatre.

In consulting firing people “on the bench” happens regularly if the sales pipeline cannot keep everyone busy, there is only so much agencies pay from their own pocket if there are no outsourcing deals landing.

In some of those well known offshoring companies, being on bench automatically means a downcut on the salary as cost measure.