[Tade0]

> And the funny thing is we developers did this to ourselves, by doing free open source work for the greater good, which now feeds AI models that are replacing many of us.

Open source is not to blame here. AI companies used the code, in some cases against the license, to train their models.

Nobody is actually getting replaced - it's just that layoffs are in vogue now. If there was productivity to gain here, it would be used to do more and capture more of the market.

[therealpygon]

“Nobody is actually getting replaced” is an interesting take given currently available information on force reductions, stated cause, and AI implementation increases across sectors replacing workloads and causing fewer employees to accomplish the same goals, regardless of any opinions on whether that is positive, negative, problematic, or anything else to the future since the impact is now.

Could you point to some factual basis for that claim, or is this a feeling disguised as an opinion disguised as a factual statement?

[suttontom]

https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/technology/ai-layoffs...

https://cmr.berkeley.edu/2025/10/seven-myths-about-ai-and-pr...

https://www.technologyreview.com/2026/05/26/1137855/a-realit...

You?

[therealpygon]

Cool opinion pieces that build stories from cherry-picked data.

My sources? Easy.

Just try searching for news stories of companies directly stating AI is the reason for layoffs. I don’t need to do any statistical or mental gymnastics for my evidence of it happening when it is literally as easy as looking at the result and the stated causes.

[suttontom]

What is your problem? Do you think something is an opinion piece just because it has a byline? What about https://www.forrester.com/press-newsroom/forrester-impact-ai...? Is there literally any evidence you'd accept?

You know companies lie and overstate things, right?

[therealpygon]

Your first article seems to start with a premise that laying off workers, whose jobs magically no longer need doing, and hiring AI focused workers means AI didn’t replace anyone. Your second article really doesn’t seem to address the subject beyond mostly talking about “overhyped” versions of conversations. The third article uses the fact that people who are exposed to AI aren’t entirely unemployed (despite rising unemployment across sectors and decreasing pay) and as such is proof a job apocalypse is unlikely. You follow up with yet another article in a similar vein.

Are you missing the pattern here?

Which of these articles and which part specifically do you believe supports the statement “NO ONE” is losing their job due to AI? Zero. Not a single one?

Okay, if not that, are you trying to refute my statement that automation is increasing across sectors? Which one of your articles refutes this statement categorically? Is it that you’re refuting AI is used in or to implement automations? Are you refuting that people have lost jobs to automations? Are you refuting that an AI does not need to replace an ENTIRE job in order to cause someone to lose their job or for a job to be replaced with a lesser paying job?

I’m not clear on how you think what you have provided is actually contextually relevant to the words I actually wrote, much less how I must have a “problem” because of it.

[bdangubic]

if you believe what companies are telling you (publicly traded companies especially which have to say this), I got some Enron stock options to sell to you :)

[jfil]

Well, none of the AI-generated code now seeping into those companies' codebase is copyrightable. So we're about to see a lot more free-use code hit the scene, when the chickens come home to roost. (Not the same as open source, but still a shakeup of the current status)

[pjmlp]

They certainly are, CMS deployment projects are no longer relying on humans for translation and asset creation, at least not in the same amount.