I genuinely believe that roughly 10% of most companies are ineffective employees, whether via being a dumbass or just not caring (valid or not).
fuck, I'm seeing it happen as my own company grows from very small to medium small (a few dozen people). I swear some of my new coworkers are just AI with the way they lie to your face, you point it out, and then they immediately agree with you that yes what they said was incorrect.
companies operating in democratic countries need to realize that eventually they will hit a point where the amount of workers displaced by the technology are going to be enough to negatively impact them via the legal system.
While AI might be a helpful tool, and /could/ be cost effective in a perfect world. All that means nothing if the general public starts looking at it from a negative POV and starts voting on laws that restrict or ban it.
If big companies were smart, they would be starting to advocate for something to placebo the general working class, such as a UBI or a supplement for people that were displaced by the tech. I don't expect they will though, and eventually it'll be a lot of money wasted developing into a tech that is likely just going to be outlawed or heavily restricted.
Oh they're great at lots of it. AI call centers? Completely unnavigable. If you wanted help, instead of customer support you should tweet at the company and hope it goes viral
AI doctors? They can deny insurance coverages at light speed. Same day rejection is the kind of "innovation" healthcare needs
AI investment advisors? They'll help you talk yourself into betting on whatever notion you think might be profitable, and tell you that's it's the smartest most clever investment idea they've ever heard
Honestly the only thing I see current level AI reliably doing without being used as an assistive tool is grunt info work. For example a lot of T1 customer service positions can moreorless be replaced out with the current level of LLM's that we have. Many T1 support roles consist almost entirely of searching the current customers issue, copy/pasting a boilerplate solution list of what may fix it, asking "did that work?" and if not escalating to the next tier. Hallucinations at this level won't have a very big impact outside of annoying the customer and the t2 when it gets escalated because it failed to fix the issue. Said system shouldn't have control over anything, it should strictly be information based. Anything management wise or financial wise or general output of merchandise should not be using these technologies standalone, at most it should be an assistive tool to a human in that position.
Idk if I am a special case or part of the majority, but when I resort to calling a support line, it's because I have exhausted the options available to me via technology, and I need a human to take responsibility. So there has literally never been a time when a purely informational AI support bot has been useful to me.
I'm the same way here, being said, if that's the case a T1 wouldn't be useful to you anyway, as they just copy/paste the simple solutions you have likely already tried. So really no harm is done in this circumstance.
for rewording for simplicity because I read it wrong the first time. The linked article said that in their study an AI assisted developer took an average 20% longer to complete a project than the non-AI assisted dev.
This is actually quite interesting to me, granted their study pool was very small(only 16 devs), but that is an interesting data point.
Being said, this is also a different field than what I was talking about, since that moved it to development instead of T1 customer service, but the data is nice to see.
24 Comments
nz_fish@sh.itjust.works · 37 pts · 290d
I guess if 11.7% of your workforce is unreliable dumbasses then they could be replaced by AI
agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works · 12 pts · 290d
Based on my experience, yeah at least 11.7%
Bakkoda@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 290d
looks up the ladder
I just see assholes
mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 289d
I genuinely believe that roughly 10% of most companies are ineffective employees, whether via being a dumbass or just not caring (valid or not).
fuck, I'm seeing it happen as my own company grows from very small to medium small (a few dozen people). I swear some of my new coworkers are just AI with the way they lie to your face, you point it out, and then they immediately agree with you that yes what they said was incorrect.
a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 289d
Bottom of a bell curve...
skeezix@lemmy.world · 34 pts · 290d
I guess nobody is asking what happens IF 11.7% of the workforce is replaced. It’s like sawing the branch that you’re sitting on.
“Sure we helped destroy the economic system, nobody has money to buy our products, but hey we saved 2 million last quarter!”
Pika@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 290d
companies operating in democratic countries need to realize that eventually they will hit a point where the amount of workers displaced by the technology are going to be enough to negatively impact them via the legal system.
While AI might be a helpful tool, and /could/ be cost effective in a perfect world. All that means nothing if the general public starts looking at it from a negative POV and starts voting on laws that restrict or ban it.
If big companies were smart, they would be starting to advocate for something to placebo the general working class, such as a UBI or a supplement for people that were displaced by the tech. I don't expect they will though, and eventually it'll be a lot of money wasted developing into a tech that is likely just going to be outlawed or heavily restricted.
DrFistington@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 290d
Is that 11.7% part of middle management or C-suite? That's about the only aspect of any business that could be reliably replaced with AI
BigMikeInAustin@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 290d
That's exactly what I'm thinking.
PunnyName@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 290d
CEOs and billionaires first.
I'm hungry.
Spacehooks@reddthat.com · 7 pts · 290d
Would love to see an actual example of them being better than a person in these fields.
theneverfox@pawb.social · 5 pts · 290d
Oh they're great at lots of it. AI call centers? Completely unnavigable. If you wanted help, instead of customer support you should tweet at the company and hope it goes viral
AI doctors? They can deny insurance coverages at light speed. Same day rejection is the kind of "innovation" healthcare needs
AI investment advisors? They'll help you talk yourself into betting on whatever notion you think might be profitable, and tell you that's it's the smartest most clever investment idea they've ever heard
MyOpinion@lemmy.today · 6 pts · 290d
I am sure the AI companies will take care of use when they take all of our jobs.
Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 290d
Were they assuming it works properly when they made this study? Because it kind of... Doesn't
TheJesusaurus@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 290d
Which specific 11% of the workforce are we comfortable being totally unaccountable and unthinking?
Unforeseen@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 290d
Delilah@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 290d
C-suite execs
Pika@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 290d
Honestly the only thing I see current level AI reliably doing without being used as an assistive tool is grunt info work. For example a lot of T1 customer service positions can moreorless be replaced out with the current level of LLM's that we have. Many T1 support roles consist almost entirely of searching the current customers issue, copy/pasting a boilerplate solution list of what may fix it, asking "did that work?" and if not escalating to the next tier. Hallucinations at this level won't have a very big impact outside of annoying the customer and the t2 when it gets escalated because it failed to fix the issue. Said system shouldn't have control over anything, it should strictly be information based. Anything management wise or financial wise or general output of merchandise should not be using these technologies standalone, at most it should be an assistive tool to a human in that position.
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 290d
Most T1 customer service I deal with is already useless AI garbage.
tatterdemalion@programming.dev · 3 pts · 290d
Idk if I am a special case or part of the majority, but when I resort to calling a support line, it's because I have exhausted the options available to me via technology, and I need a human to take responsibility. So there has literally never been a time when a purely informational AI support bot has been useful to me.
Pika@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 290d
I'm the same way here, being said, if that's the case a T1 wouldn't be useful to you anyway, as they just copy/paste the simple solutions you have likely already tried. So really no harm is done in this circumstance.
ninja@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 290d
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 290d
Currently, one AI assisted worker can do the job of ⅘ of a non-AI assisted worker (numbers not made up: https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.09089 )
Pika@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 290d
for rewording for simplicity because I read it wrong the first time. The linked article said that in their study an AI assisted developer took an average 20% longer to complete a project than the non-AI assisted dev.
This is actually quite interesting to me, granted their study pool was very small(only 16 devs), but that is an interesting data point.
Being said, this is also a different field than what I was talking about, since that moved it to development instead of T1 customer service, but the data is nice to see.
psud@aussie.zone · 3 pts · 290d
In comparison level 5 self driving would replace 30% of the workforce, and 5% of workers being unemployed is the expected normal background rate
11.7% is hardly anything
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social · 5 pts · 290d
This guy's getting replaced by a chatbot because he clearly isn't in a position that requires critical thinking ability