Hacker News Reader

Comment by Frieren | Hacker News Reader

It is obvious that Amazon wishes to replace all its employees for cheaper alternatives. That is true for all big companies. How realistic is this plan that is the question.

American companies lie so often about the feasibility of future capabilities that it is becoming just background noise. If the plan is not realistic, if it is not based in well argued projects, then they are just lying to the public and to investors. Currently the bar is so low, that anything counts as "we just though that it was possible" so it is not illegal. That should be solved.

View on HN

As a person who worked in an Amazon Warehouse on two separate occasions, one for roughly a year part-time:

https://www.reddit.com/r/EDC/comments/dmnuts/53mamazon_fulfi...

the desire to save money/replace workers is real (though I wish that they would start by recycling packaging/materials in the warehouses) and there are certainly a lot of ways in which this could be done --- the issue of course is how society will work through this --- I suspect we'd all feel a bit differently about this if Amazon were a public benefit corporation rather than one focused on profit for shareholders. Their motto is:

>Work Hard, Have Fun, Make History.

and it really should have included something about making the world a better place or doing good.....

> How realistic is this plan that is the question.

FTA:

Amazon has considered steps to improve its image as a “good corporate citizen” in preparation for the anticipated backlash around job losses, according to The NYT, reporting that the company considered participating in community projects and avoiding terms like “automation” and “AI.” More vague terms like “advanced technology” were explored instead, and using the term “cobot” for robots that work alongside humans.

You're not wrong, but an important distinction in this case (at least according to TFA) is that these were internal documents, not intended for the public/investors.

Internal documents doesn't mean they weren't lying. It just changes the target, the expected audience, of the lie. Many workers lie to their bosses. They speak what they think their bosses want to hear, and bosses tell them what lies they want to be told.

Internal communication is also subject to lies and misrepresentation. Gotta earn that bonus somehow.

So, what, nothing can be trusted ever??

It can be trusted that someone wrote this for a specific audience. Whether the contextual understanding of that audience matches our own is another matter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com