Hacker News Reader

Comment by freedomben | Hacker News Reader

A couple of things. I'm not disputing the findings here, but I do think there are some caveats to be aware of.

Firstly, this doesn't seem to differentiate between fields/industries. It's entirely possible for AI to devastate a particular segment (like graphic design or software dev, etc) while still appearing low-impact on the overall.

Secondly,

> "Businesses reported a notable increase in AI use over the past year, yet very few firms reported AI-induced layoffs," New York Fed economists wrote in the blog.

Is this only relying on self-reporting? What company wants to be the lightning rod who comes out and says, "we laid off a bunch of people and replaced with AI"? Maybe for huge public companies that can't fudge it this would be ok, but relying on self-reports comes with an inherent risk of bias

View on HN

I don't think AI is actively laying people off by replacing entire roles, but I think it is preventing hires that would have happened. In terms of employment figures, this can have a similar effect.

I'm in a small growing tech company and I can say as a matter of fact that in a world without AI we would have made several hires in the past 18 months. Because of LLMs and agents my team doesn't have the need to bring more people in. It's as simple as that.

That's right. As a tech company, we can now do more with the people we have.

Marc Benioff at Salesforce is saying exactly this

And Brian Armstrong at Coinbase

Exactly. If they just lay people off, that's just cost cutting, and potentially seen as a bad sign. If they're saying they're laying people off because they're replacing them with AI, then they're innovative!

The question is how does the product outlook appear? Most large companies do layoffs constantly to appease investors and nobody blinks twice, why would they care if you made the P&L even better if it doesn't degrade the product in their eyes?

I really think layoffs and stock buybacks within 12 months of each other should be prohibited, if not downright make stock buybacks illegal. Have extra capital? Then pay a dividend.

Would they be allowed to pay a dividend within 12 months of a layoff?

They aren't replacing people directly though, like an AI can't fill a seat that a person used to. The claim seems to be that individuals are more productive now so less people are needed.

Measuring productivity has been attempted by every big tech co. and has never really had amazing results. So to claim they can lay off 1,000 people because of "AI" means they must have measured some % increase in individual productivity and know they can function with less people.

Or it's just a big excuse to cut low performers and compensate for overhiring.

The overwhelming majority of AI pilot projects at companies fail. They're trying to replace people but overwhelmingly can't.

> What company wants to be the lightning rod who comes out and says, "we laid off a bunch of people and replaced with AI"?

Isn't that precisely what all publicly traded companies want to say, and are often saying? I feel like I read a new headline of some sociopathic CEO bragging about how many people he managed to lay off thanks to AI every day.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com