• TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    4 months ago

    I don’t even knowing if calling them "lagging’ is a good characterization. From my observation they’re simply incapable.

  • squaresinger@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    Because it’s not about efficiency, or getting things done, or anything like that. And it never was.

    In corporate environments it’s everyone for themselves and everyone has different goals that often conflict with the overall goal of the company.

    The CEO wants to get their bonus, so they do whatever’s in their KPI, no matter how dumb it is.

    The managers want to make themselves look good, so they do whatever they can to look better than the other managers. Even if it’s stupid and hurts the company, all that doesn’t matter. Even if they know it’s stupid.

    Workers want to either make themselves look good to get promotions, or they want to look like they are doing enough to keep their job.

    Nobody has the actual long-term success of the company in mind, as long as everything runs good enough that they don’t lose their job.


    Fireing people is something investors like, because it makes money in short time. And if you can figure out an excuse that makes it look like you are doing this to create long-term profit, then you are a genius. No matter if it’s actually long-term profitable.

  • northernlights@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    Coz adding AI to your company makes the stock ridiculously explode (see that shoe company that turned “AI”).

  • rynn@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    It’s slow and hard to fire low performers case by case.

    It’s quick and easy to fire large swaths of allegedly low performers under the guise of a layoff.

    You can always quickly rehire any layoff mistakes, and Wall Street is rewarding layoffs these days if it’s for AI.

  • Brkdncr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    Because if one human managing 5 AI agents gets 120% work output, then you either can scale up and produce more widgets or scale down and save costs on workforce.

    • AstralPath@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      Want to know another easy way to save costs on the workforce? We’ve all known this option since 2020. You close your brick and mortar office and let people work from home.

    • orclev@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Except for the slight problem that those 5 AI agents cost the same as 3 people so you could have skipped the agents, just hired 3 people and gotten 400% output instead of 120%. Yeah it takes longer to scale up and down, but exactly how volatile is your industry that demand is fluctuating that much month to month?

      • Brkdncr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        The world is going through population decline. We aren’t going to have the people to do the work.