Alle sagen immer wieder, dass KI den Menschen überflüssig machen wird. Ich denke, das Gegenteil passiert – und wir haben jetzt Beweise.
Klarna ersetzte 700 Mitarbeiter durch KI. Das Ergebnis? Sie stellen wieder Menschen ein. Block versuchte dasselbe. Gleiches Ergebnis. Shopify, Duolingo, IBM – immer wieder das gleiche Muster.
Hier ist meine konträre Meinung: Diese Fehler zeigen nicht, dass KI schlecht ist. Sie beweisen, dass menschliche Arbeitskräfte VIEL wertvoller sind, als den Unternehmen bewusst ist. Denken Sie darüber nach. Wenn Sie durch die Ersetzung von 700 Mitarbeitern durch KI Millionen an Gehältern einsparen, aber Qualität, Kundenzufriedenheit und letztendlich Umsatz einbüßen – was sagt Ihnen das über den Wert, den diese 700 Mitarbeiter tatsächlich geschaffen haben?
Unternehmen behandeln Mitarbeiter seit Jahrzehnten als Kostenstellen. KI sollte das ultimative Kostensenkungsinstrument sein. Stattdessen wurde es zum ultimativen Beweis dafür, dass menschliches Urteilsvermögen, Kreativität und Anpassungsfähigkeit weit mehr wert sind als ihr Gehalt.
Die intelligentesten Unternehmen entscheiden sich derzeit nicht zwischen KI und Menschen. Sie statten ihre bestehende Belegschaft mit KI aus und beobachten, wie die Produktivität explodiert. Das ist die wahre Geschichte, die niemand beachtet.
Es gibt eine detaillierte Aufschlüsselung dessen, was genau in jedem Unternehmen passiert ist und warum "Alle feuern, KI einsetzen" Strategie scheitert immer wieder: https://youtu.be/0Teg_BBMAKQ
Ich denke, wir werden auf die Jahre 2024–2026 als die Zeit zurückblicken, in der Unternehmen zufällig bewiesen haben, dass menschliche Arbeitskräfte unersetzlich sind. Heiße Aufnahme? Vielleicht. Aber die Daten belegen es.
Unpopular opinion: The companies that fired workers for AI are proving that humans are MORE valuable, not less
byu/FaithlessnessIcy3284 inFuturology
21 Kommentare
I think a lot of these senior leaders haven’t used LLMs enough. I love these technologies and use them as much as I can, but wouldn’t trust them as far as I could throw them, because I see how often they get things very wrong. They’re good for enhancing the work of an experienced person, but hopeless for replacing them.
To be far, IBM did not fire people because of AI directly. They did fire people in parts of the business that were not working.
Many in HR were given the opportunity to reskill.
You don’t take into account that the jobs humans are being hired for aren’t as attractive, don’t require as much talent, or are not as well compensated as they were previously. You are also looking at a snapshot of time without discussing the long term ramifications as AI continues to advance. Without human capital do companies continue scaling up their businesses? Is innovation still a thing or is it all focused on automation and half-baked AI solutions. There’s much to your argument that is lacking.
I’ve always suspected that the next industry trend in AI will be rehiring humans to fix AI code. I’m just a little surprised and more than a little pleased to see it happening so soon.
Most of these layoffs aren’t because of ai. It’s the easy scapegoat, but it’s not why. They over hired after COVID, they pivoted in the wrong direction, the list goes on.
Lay offs because of those decisions reveal the miss from leadership. Lay offs because AI is driving the company forward sounds like a win to the board and investors.
It’s widely known that AI is used as an excuse for cutting heads.
Now in 18 months…
I’m a writer and for a time, I started using AI for editing. I wanted to write my first novel and tried different AIs. They didn’t work. They all sound the same. At this point, I can read any article written with AI and it’s the same and it sounds boring. AI just keeps replicating the same stuff.
Also companies have been retrenching people since capitalism started. They dont wanna pay gov benefits.
They are of course rehiring, as you noticed.
My company is very AI forward. There was a presentation where the CIO of a digital transformation company was talking as a guest speaker. They compared AI to acting as an INTERN. That’s the level a lot of leadership of tech companies view ai as.
The video you posted here, which is obviously yours, since it was posted very recently, didn’t rely on an actual human voice. If your point is correct, why did you choose an AI voice instead of a human professional?
This answer to this question explain why humans are no longer that valuable
There’s another important issue: AI companies are operating at a loss to gain market share. And that won’t last forever. Token costs are higher, and I don’t think there’s any real comparison between the actual cost of using AI and the cost of human intervention.
In programming, for example, let’s look at something simple: a frontend web page with a form. Creating it via AI involves costs, and you need someone to review it if you want to be thorough.
A programmer generally isn’t going to create the page from scratch either. Copy and paste has been used since the Stack Overflow era: copy and paste, then review and adjust.
Currently, AI is practical and makes programmers more efficient. You have everything in one place; it does the copy and paste, and you only have to review. But with real AI costs? Either AI becomes less resource-intensive, or I doubt it.
Speed isn’t a panacea either; generating a thousand lines of code using AI is fast, but reviewing it isn’t, and that’s what companies that bet everything on AI are realizing. AI is creating junk code, and programmers aren’t reviewing everything because they run out of human resources to do so, resulting in programs/websites with tons of junk code that break at every turn.
I find it amusing how companies love getting rid of employees in favour of AI, only to then realize it’s humans and not AI that are their customers.
It’s a good rule of thumb to sell to human beings, and having human beings in your team helps. What a concept!
AI is being used sucessfully for 2 things currently.
1. Boosting profits by laying people off
2. hiring those same people back a few months later with reduced salaries because they’re desparate for a job.
it’s the only thing its good for and CEO’s realized it so they’re using it sucessfully.
It’s crazy that you wrote this with AI given the content/angle you’re going for.
The tools are still improving. This is the transition time. The great displacement is just starting.
Many humans are bad at their jobs too, the difference here is that the next model often doesn’t have the problems it had before. What is crap today will be adequate tomorrow and decent next year.
Companies have no choice, they have to embrace the emerging tech. Stick holders demand it and their competitors are making the shift so they have to too.
Soon.
What it shows to me is that companies will drop you in a heartbeat if they think they can save a few bucks, but now that they’re realizing they need humans because AI isn’t the panacea they thought it was, once AI gets better it will be back to firing the humans. So act accordingly. Companies don’t care about you.
Makes sense to me! Another tool for employees to be more productive.
It was always typical shortsightedness from CEOs and senior management. These people are particularly vulnerable to sales people, who have spent that last 5 years singing from the rafters about AI. Meanwhile, what we have now isn’t really AI and the practicality of things like generative AI is limited.
I mean… *of course* humans are more valuable. That’s why they cost more. The issue is whether the extra value that a real human brings is worth the huge additional expense of having to pay for them, or whether a given task can be done to a „good enough“ standard by a bot that costs a fraction of the wages, works overnight shifts, and never takes a day off
I’m curious to know what companies are seeing their productivity explode. My understanding is that people are largely using AI to simply accomplish their tasks using less energy, not that they are getting more done. People are using it to reclaim their lives and punch out at 5, and managers are left wondering how they are getting stuck with bills of thousands of dollars per month per employee but still only getting the same output as they had in the pre-AI era
For some reason it does feel obvious that Ai systems will still always need human interaction and maintenance, or it just breaks or stays in a certain plateau. We’ve built something inspired natural processes- the same processes have to be maintained by humans still.
Most of them used AI as an excuse for layoffs or a combination. They fully expected to rehire some roles, but for lower salaries. Public companies look at layoffs as an investment. If 5 years of salaries based on current contracts for 50 employees is projected to cost $10m, but severance costs $2m and new contracts cost $5m, they’re „investing“ $2m to save $3m over the next 5 years. Not to mention the tax write offs.
„companies accidentally proved that human workers are irreplaceable“
Human workers will always be replaced with cheaper human workers.