> no one is stating "we've replaced X% of our workforce with AI"
Even if that's been happening, I don't think it would be politically savvy to admit it.
In today's social climate claiming to replace humans with AI would attract the wrong kind of attention from politicians (during an election year) and from the public in general.
This would be even more unwise to admit for a company like Google who's an "AI producer". They may leave such a language for closed meetings with potential customers during sales pitches though.
It’s a disservice to the public to assume they aren’t capable of understanding why AI job losses might be concerning even if they aren’t directly impacted. Most people aren’t so committed to class warfare that they will root for the apocalypse as long as it stomps a rich guy first.
You mean poor person. As long as it stomps a poor person. The rich don’t have a habit of getting stomped. They direct other poor people to stomp their contemporaries. The poor don’t have a chance.
I don't think a lot of people realize how few people are "rich" in the sense of not being impacted by the labor market, or how virtually all of them are retirees. CFOs aren't looking forward to a massive shift in the labor market for accountants any more than CPAs. Warren Buffet has a "job," he writes those letters for BH and oversees the firm's investments at a high level... and most of the people who live off of investments have children in the workforce. Even most people whose children live off of their investments have kids in the (nonprofit) workforce.
Software engineers and grocery store workers are in different income brackets, but in the same class (labor/prolaterian). It is managers, executives, and investors that are in the capitalist class. Class is determined by your relationship to production.
Two things: capitalists don't not work; and if you have a sizeable portfolio, you may not need to work and may earn plenty of passive income, yet still work because you add more value at the margin working than fiddling with stock allocations or angel investing or whatnot (vs index funds etc.).
It's easy to get a capitalist to come out of retirement. Most of the time you just have to ask them to take a look at your business. Before you know it they accept a board position and shortly thereafter they are running point as President.
The people who cheered about the firing of 80% of the Twitter staff largely believed (rightly or wrongly) that they were being adversely affected by them. While Google may be seen with more wariness in tech circles, I don't think the average person believes that Google is actively harming them (again, rightly or wrongly).
These aren't the same types of events. In Twitter's case, it was a one-off act, caused by one-off circumstances. With Google, it'd be more of a precursor to a new trend that might soon take root and impact me or those I care about.
And a lot of people heavily disagreed with how they handled moderation. You can take things like the hunter Biden laptop suppression or in the funny category you had the getting banned for saying learn to code (https://reason.com/2019/03/11/learn-to-code-twitter-harassme...).
Take random company without controversies and you will find less vitriol about them getting fired.
I care as a consumer who hates standing in long lines. My former bank branch had thirteen teller stations and two tellers. This wasn't on a bad day. This was for years.
People in Google salary brackets get jobs at Google-1 salary brackets, pushing junior people at Google-1 to Google-2, all the way down to IT departments at non-tech firms. This impacts everybody who's in the industry or capable of switching.
Why would the general public care about Google employees. Google is however a major saas provider. And people might start to worry that their employer is going to soon buy a subscription to whatever that that Google used to automate jobs.
>> Even if that's been happening, I don't think it would be politically savvy to admit it.
When I was working in RPA (robotic process automation) about 7 years ago, we were explicitly told not to say "You can reduce your team size by having use develop an automation that handles what they're doing!"
Even back then we were told to talk about how RPA (and by proxy AI) empowers your team to focus on the really important things. Automation just reduces the friction to getting things done. Instead of doing 4 hours of mindless data input or moving folders from one place to the other, automation gives you back those four hours so your team can do something sufficiently more important and focus on the bigger picture stuff.
Some teams loved the idea. Other leaders were skeptical and never adopted it. I spent the majority of those three years trying to selling them on this idea automation was good and very little time actually coding. Its interesting seeing the paradigm shift and seeing this stuff everywhere now.
> Even back then we were told to talk about how RPA (and by proxy AI) empowers your team to focus on the really important things.
As a non-politically savy person ;-) I have a feeling that this is a similarly dangerous message, since what prevents many teams to focus on really important things is often far too long meetings with managers and similar "important" stakeholders.
The reason you don't lead with headcount reduction is two-fold.
1. Almost every business has growing workload. That means reassigning good employees and not hiring new headcount, not firing existing headcount. Unipurpose, low-value offshore teams are the only ones who get cut (e.g. doing "{this} for every one of {these}" work).
2. Most operational automation is impossible to build well without deep process expertise from the SME currently performing it. If you fire that person immediately after automating their task, what do you think the next SME tells you, when you need their help?
Successfully scaling operational automation programs therefore rely on additional headcount avoidance (aka improving their volume:employee ratio) and value measurement (FTE-equivalent time savings) to justify/measure.
> I don't think it would be politically savvy to admit it.
Would it be? Do they care?
Sam Altman's been talking about how GenAI could break capitalism (maybe not the exact quote, but something similar), and these companies have been pushing out GenAI products that could obviously and easily be used to fake photographic or video evidence of things that have occurred in the real world. Elon's obsessed with making an AI that's trained to be a 20-year-old male edgelord from the sewer pits of the internet.
Compared to those things, "we've replaced X% of our workforce with AI" is absolutely anodyne.
Altman encourages anyone that will listen to him that monopolies are the only path to success in business. He has a lot riding on making sure everyone is addicted to AI and that he’s the one selling the shovels.
Google isn’t far off.
Most capitalists have this fantasy that they can reduce their labour expenses with AI and continue stock buy-backs and ever-increasing executive payouts.
What sucks is that they rely on class divisions so that people don’t feel bad when the “overpaid” software developers get replaced. Problem is that software developers are also part of the proletariat and creating these artificial class divisions is breaking up the ability to organize.
It’s not AI replacing jobs, it’s capital holders. AI is just the smoke and mirrors.
Sam's company is not a multi-trillion dollar behemoth that employs hundreds of thousands and has practical (near-)monopoly on a huge swaths of the digital economy.
> I don't think it would be politically savvy to admit it.
Depends on who you ask.
If Trump wins and Elon Musk actually gets a new job, they would be bragging about replacing humans with AI all day long. And corporates are going to love it.
Not sure about what voters think though. But the fact that most of these companies are in California, New York etc means that it barely matters.
I find the boast about ending the war to be reasonably likely -- if it is clear the US is switching sides in the conflict, a negotiated capitulation could happen pretty quickly.
In a similar vein, solving world hunger is closer today than it's ever been. The previous best hope was global thermonuclear war, but honestly that would leave enough survivors as to be mostly ineffective, and much more likely to have the opposite result. Severe climate change has a better shot at fully eliminating [human] hunger.
Corporates will soon have to realise the hard reality that when masses of humans have been replaced there won't be masses of humans with salaries to buy said corporate's goods anymore.
>> they would be bragging about replacing humans with AI all day long.
Has either bragged about this at all?
The only thing I've heard floated is Musk running a "government efficiency commission" which I just assumed meant he would be looking for ways to gut a lot of the never ending, never dying government programs. I've never heard him saying the commissions goal was to replace people with AI.
The former president said such an audit would be to combat waste and fraud and suggested it could save trillions for the economy.
As the first order of business, Trump said that this commission will develop an action plan to eliminate fraud and improper payments within six months.
That would be the way someone with no real awareness of the philosophies and realities of the two parties in the US would see it. And to be fair, that's a good description of a large chunk of the American electorate.
But you can't have a guy who literally used to relieve himself into a golden toilet take over your party and be anything but the party of big business and billionaires.
Still a guy who operated multiple luxury hotel and golf course properties that would laugh a working man out the front door if he asked for an affordable room.
Even if that's been happening, I don't think it would be politically savvy to admit it.
In today's social climate claiming to replace humans with AI would attract the wrong kind of attention from politicians (during an election year) and from the public in general.
This would be even more unwise to admit for a company like Google who's an "AI producer". They may leave such a language for closed meetings with potential customers during sales pitches though.