[hobs]

So much work to avoid being upset at this guy: "But to offer its services explicitly as a replacement for striking workers was bound to be an unpopular move."

No, really? You'd think these AI guys would have better PR departments.

[fosefx]

They were replaced by AI

[KeplerBoy]

Claude would tell you that this is a shitty move PR wise and likely to backfire.

Edit: Tried it, and yes claude started it's answer with: "I need to strongly advise against making such an offer publicly". No wonder these people are so impressed by their AIs, considering they are making worse choices than their models.

[apwell23]

> AI guys would have better PR departments.

you mean posting a picture of strawberry on twitter isn't enough PR ?

[mandibles]

The LLM never goes on strike.

[mywittyname]

No, but the companies that operate them are thinking long term. Once they are completely embedded into the company (read: difficult to replace), they ratchet up the fees.

Nevermind all the costs and work involved with onboarding.

[dakiol]

Current LLMs can (because they are still maintained by humans). I think it will be a decade still until we have software maintaining itself (i.e., rewriting its own code, fixing vulnerabilities, etc)

[hiddencost]

No, it already exists. The big companies already have fully LLM generated code going into their code bases. The code is being reviewed by humans.

Google had a fairly costly outage due to a fully LLM generated CL, already.

[thenobsta]

not yet, wait till it wants more compute and we're unwilling to allocate it.

[nomel]

I don't see how this is negative PR. It's an effective, positive, advertisement for anyone actually interested in the service (business or personal): "Oh wow, it could replace a reporter? I should try it!".

The purpose of technology: reduce human effort. But, technology is always unpopular to those whose efforts are being reduced.

Now, is it possible for their AI to replace them is another question. What sort of reduction for headcount/time spent, without a negative impact on quality, is a better question. But, a question that people that hear this might be asking now.

And, to be fair, I don't know anyone who enjoys simple facts being wrapped in corporate bullshit. What would be better verbiage? I think it's refreshing that it was stated directly, rather than some nothing statement about striving to do good and support customers without responding to the issue at all, as is usually the case.