Workers grappling with the rapid growth of artificial intelligence have said they feel “devalued” by the technology and warned of a downward trajectory in the quality of work.

Recent analysis by the International Monetary Fund found AI would affect about 40% of jobs around the world. Its head, Kristalina Georgieva, has said: “This is like a tsunami hitting the labour market.”

Workers who have trained AI models to replace some or all of their roles tell the Guardian about their experiences.

  • Korhaka@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    4 hours ago

    “We are not replacing anyones job, this is just saving time” is something we keep hearing at work, if its saving time that means fewer people are required. I am sure it won’t replace 100% of any 1 persons entire workload any time soon, but if it replaced 20% of 10 peoples workload, HR will make 4 of those people redundant and spread their tasks among the 6 remaining now increasingly overworked employees.

    • Powderhorn@beehaw.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Going to have to challenge the math here … 20% of 10 is two, not four. Granted, HR may cull four anyway, but in terms of what LLMs can currently do, HR is a perfect thing to replace. Literally all they do is follow rules to benefit the company. Sounds a bit like coding to me …

      • Korhaka@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        now increasingly overworked employees

        My point was that HR will replace some of the workload, and remove more of the workers. Then those remaining get lumped with an even greater workload than they had before.

    • MagicShel@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Let’s say AI increases productivity by 10%. So you’d reduce staff by one person out of every ten. But how many teams actually have ten people on them? My biggest development teams might’ve had 10 between PM, devs, and QA. But again cut one of your five devs and you reduce capacity, not increase it.

      I’ve never worked anywhere that a 10% increase in productivity could justify cutting a person. I’m sure those places are out there, but it seems uncommon.

      It might let them cut staff off they can overwork their people that much more, but a lot of people are stretched to capacity even now.

      • Dave.@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        28 minutes ago

        There’s slack time in people’s daily work hours. You work an 8 hour day, possibly you’re only actually productive for 4 to 6 hours.

        Take that into account and suddenly that thing that claims it can cut an hour or two here and there gets a lot more interesting.