They’re correct, albeit likely misinformed in their decision making.
Industry is changing. You either have to adapt to keep with the times or find a tech job where AI isn’t necessary - which practically speaking will become a rarity over time.
Industry is changing. You either have to adapt to keep with the times or find a tech job where AI isn’t necessary - which practically speaking will become a rarity over time.
For example, at my day job, they pushed it on us, but speed of coding and technical work was not the thing that was bottlenecking productivity. Until someone gets 2 businesses in the same market doing more or less the same thing, one which does it without any AI coding, and another which uses almost exclusively AI coding, and demonstrates that the one that uses AI almost exclusively A) Has more reach B) Makes more money C) produces better quality products and D) Can actually sustain that over a long period of time, nobody has any business forcing this and claiming that "its inevitable" or "we have to use this" etc...
But that's not what's happening. These seemingly otherwise somewhat bright, so-called scientific people are not using any science at all in their conclusions and statements. Science teaches us to question, to not take something for gospel, to develop hypotheses, to test these hypotheses, to challenge. It doesn't teach us to go "Oh well, this is inevitable, let's just throw in the towel." To that end, I'm see multiple entrepreneurs and founders who feel the same way start making a difference here by starting their own businesses using ethics and scientific/engineering principles to approach it, which excites me. I don't mind leaving big tech, big moneybags behind. We should have never worshipped them in the first place.
I can personally tell you that AI has indeed increased revenue and growth and I see it every day, both in and out of my day job.
To each their own I suppose.