> You mean almost like it was super short sighted to do a ton of layoffs when the AI tech is going to cost almost as much, if not more, than the humans it replaced?

No, why? It was perhaps a bit too long-sighted, because AI is still improving and often not quite there yet.

Though looking at overall unemployment numbers (which are fairly low across the board), the AI layoffs are more of an anecdote than anything else.

▲

StilesCrisis 40 minutes ago | parent [-]

Ah yes, no tech layoffs recently at all!

(???)

	▲	Petersipoi 11 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You're mistaking a CEO claiming layoffs are a result of AI with layoffs actually being a result of AI. In other words, if I were a CEO that needed to do layoffs, I'd blame them on AI. Because why the fuck wouldn't I? It's practically a get out of jail free card right now. The big bad AI is the villain, not me!
	▲	eru 25 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Big layoffs make the news. Quiet incremental hiring doesn't. Overall employment is limited by how many people of working age there are in the economy. When tech employment grows faster than that population, the 'non-tech' sector employment shrinks, and that's not a catastrophe either. Vice versa for 'non-tech' growing faster than tech. The overall unemployment rate in the US has been basically flat-ish since Covid at around ~4%-ish. With some minor wobbles above and below that, but nothing to write home about. (Eg compared to the peak of 2010 at ~10%.) Other countries have also not seen any AI impact on overall employment numbers. Apart from maybe a data centre building boom, and Taiwan firing on all cylinders to satisfy chip demand. --- Though in any case, my point was that '[doing] a ton of layoffs' isn't necessarily short-sighted.