[mmmore]

If I were a CEO/PR team of large tech company that wanted to downsize, I would probably also say stuff like "AI efficiencies drive long term profitability". That said, I suspect in the short-medium term AI might increase salaries at the high end, but reduce opportunities at the low end. And of course, companies which seriously embrace AI advances, but in sensible ways, will do best.

https://www.klarna.com/international/regulatory-news/klarna-...

[PittleyDunkin]

> And of course, companies which seriously embrace AI advances, but in sensible ways, will do best.

The use here of "sensible" exemplifies a good way to predict basically anything you want about the market so long as you don't reveal what "sensible" means in concrete terms.

[mmmore]

What I mean concretely is embrace AI code assistants, generally allowing employees to use AI tools, use AI for some content production and customer services (preferably with human moderation and escape hatches).

What would count as non-sensible would be company wide mandates that everyone must jam AI into their work. I've heard stories about stuff like this at certain big corps.

[TheNewsIsHere]

It should be noted that AI/LLM customer service bots/agents are generally very poorly received by customers. It’s not a good tactic if you like keeping your customers happy.

[mmmore]

Are you referencing particular data?

[PittleyDunkin]

In the absence of positive data with decent sample size it's rational to substitute anecdotal data. And we all know using a chatbot with no brain sucks ass

[beefnugs]

The only "reasonable" would be supplying the tools to employees who want and are capable of making good use of them.

But make sure it never guides any downsizing or putting the screws on people to ever inhuman increases of productivity. Thus: it will never happen. Greed wins again