Just waste it on me, boss. In the long run, I’m cheaper
kylec · 1h ago
Cynically, it doesn't matter if AI actually replaces jobs, but as long as the stock market BELIEVES that it does, then it gives companies permission to do layoffs without taking a hit to the stock price.
arcane23 · 41m ago
I don't see anything strange going on, market just finding out how to properly milk the new tech. Where it is useful and where it is not.
qudat · 1h ago
That was a random show thought I had a couple days ago:
> We’ve managed to convince the biggest tech companies to invest trillions into tech that doesn’t replace SWEs, rather, a new dev tool at our disposal to make some aspects of our job easier: search and tedious coding tasks, saving us time.
Another blog post about the study that found 90% of employees were using AI regularly in their work....that totally omits the part about 90% of employees using AI regularly.
The study found that company implementations were failing while people heavily used their own choice LLMs.
selcuka · 1h ago
I agree. The original report is vague about that as well:
> Over 80 percent of organizations have explored or piloted them, and nearly 40 percent report deployment. But these tools primarily enhance individual productivity, not P&L performance.
How on earth does "enhancing individual productivity" not improve P&L performance?
stubish · 19m ago
You have to factor in the cost of the tools.
And also, just because an employee is producing more code or more reports or more trades or more summaries per day, that doesn't guarantee the company will make more money. If you enabled your market analysts to make twice as many trades per day, you will likely lose money if they actually did that. Because they were already finding the good trades, and now they are also making the not-so-good trades and maybe even the unlikely trades.
And also, in the longer term not being shown in existing studies, you are in an arms race with your competitors. Like advertising, you will be spending a lot of that money in order to counter the spending of your competitors, and you both lose the game of prisoners dilemma, the only winner being the arms dealer selling to both sides.
reval · 55m ago
Snark aside, this is the main topic of Eli Goldratt's "The Goal" - one of my favourite books. Output of the business is constrained by some bottleneck. Improving efficiency away from the bottleneck is just waste. Said differently, enhancing individual productivity has no effect on the business output unless doing so elevates the bottleneck. Sadly, most business don't know what their constraints are or are otherwise blocked from elevating them due to politics and other factors.
qudat · 1h ago
> How on earth does "enhancing individual productivity" not improve P&L performance?
If the individual is more productive, they can work fewer hours. This is especially true in a remote-work environment where you are not in an office setting.
arcane23 · 44m ago
>If the individual is more productive, they can work fewer hours.
I have never seen people working fewer hours due to technological improvement, productivity just goes up from them working more efficiently for 8 hours.
Aeolun · 1h ago
If your boss doesn’t get credited for it it doesn’t count?
https://mlq.ai/media/quarterly_decks/v0.1_State_of_AI_in_Bus...
> We’ve managed to convince the biggest tech companies to invest trillions into tech that doesn’t replace SWEs, rather, a new dev tool at our disposal to make some aspects of our job easier: search and tedious coding tasks, saving us time.
https://fosstodon.org/@erock/115112206590198248
The study found that company implementations were failing while people heavily used their own choice LLMs.
> Over 80 percent of organizations have explored or piloted them, and nearly 40 percent report deployment. But these tools primarily enhance individual productivity, not P&L performance.
How on earth does "enhancing individual productivity" not improve P&L performance?
And also, just because an employee is producing more code or more reports or more trades or more summaries per day, that doesn't guarantee the company will make more money. If you enabled your market analysts to make twice as many trades per day, you will likely lose money if they actually did that. Because they were already finding the good trades, and now they are also making the not-so-good trades and maybe even the unlikely trades.
And also, in the longer term not being shown in existing studies, you are in an arms race with your competitors. Like advertising, you will be spending a lot of that money in order to counter the spending of your competitors, and you both lose the game of prisoners dilemma, the only winner being the arms dealer selling to both sides.
If the individual is more productive, they can work fewer hours. This is especially true in a remote-work environment where you are not in an office setting.
I have never seen people working fewer hours due to technological improvement, productivity just goes up from them working more efficiently for 8 hours.
Another day, another substa...
Lots of discussion just a few weeks ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44941118
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44974104
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44940944