this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2026
787 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

81611 readers
4462 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] NekoKoneko@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

The alternative prediction is that this is in fact sustainable and AI companies will in fact have revenue to keep the bubble inflated for a lot longer, just in the worst way - by extracting the value of human-created reliability and trust from the market:

CEOs have also bought into AI almost to a person, and are using it to replace workers, results be damned. AI can't do the things they believe it can, but to them, if they can fake satisfying a need with AI for $5, that is preferable to actually satisfying a need with a real employee for $10.

The CEO is happy because his company saved $5 and he's met his stock option incentive target, the AI companies are happy to pocket that $5 instead of the employee getting $10. Maybe they even raise the customer's price to $12 as AI rent-seeking starts rising, and both companies get $6 each. Win-win, life will go on, just worse for everyone else.

[–] HexParte@lemmy.zip 2 points 19 hours ago

The truth about the “replacing everyone with AI” is even more boggling. Bezos didn’t “replace” anyone with AI when he laid off all those people. What he did was look at the cost of “salaries” vs the cost of “building an infrastructure” for AI, and decided gambling on AI was cheaper than paying the workers he’s employed.

[–] northernlights@lemmy.today 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

CEOs have also bought into AI almost to a person, and are using it to replace workers, results be damned. AI can’t do the things they believe it can, but to them, if they can fake satisfying a need with AI for $5, that is preferable to actually satisfying a need with a real employee for $10.

Yep that's exactly how me and my entire team were laid off. "Automatization".

[–] NekoKoneko@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm sorry. Recently laid off myself and management avoided directly saying AI was the reason, but other statements (C-suite talking about whether AI can do other work months before the layoffs, in front of me) convince me that was the reasoning.

[–] northernlights@lemmy.today 5 points 1 day ago

Yeah for us it was "return to office". Entire team was remote and has been the 9 years I worked there.