Louder for people at the back:
Uncategorized
18
Posts
13
Posters
0
Views
-
RE: https://mstdn.social/@rysiek/116226720041425679
Louder for people at the back:
If ‘AI’ gives you a 20% productivity increase, in an economic system that rewards growth at the expense of everything else, the rational thing for any company to do is use that productivity increase to expand into new markets. This may involve some redundancies because you need different skills for the new opportunities but they will be matched by increased hiring in the other areas. If you and your competitors both see a 20% increase in productivity and you use it to make people redundant and they use it to ship more products in more areas, then they will grow at your expense. Their products will be better than yours and you will lose market share.
If you are claiming that you have redundancies because ‘AI’ is increasing productivity, then one of the following is true:
- Your leadership team does not understand market economics (in which case, investors should worry that the board has not replaced obviously incompetent leadership).
- You are an unchallengeable monopoly and have already filled all adjacent markets and have literally no possibility of growth (in which case, investors should take note and set their price predictions based on today’s revenue, with no expectation of future growth, which would wipe out over 80% of Meta’s market cap).
- You are lying about productivity gains (in which case, investors should worry about what else you’re lying about and should start prodding the SEC to investigate).
-
RE: https://mstdn.social/@rysiek/116226720041425679
Louder for people at the back:
If ‘AI’ gives you a 20% productivity increase, in an economic system that rewards growth at the expense of everything else, the rational thing for any company to do is use that productivity increase to expand into new markets. This may involve some redundancies because you need different skills for the new opportunities but they will be matched by increased hiring in the other areas. If you and your competitors both see a 20% increase in productivity and you use it to make people redundant and they use it to ship more products in more areas, then they will grow at your expense. Their products will be better than yours and you will lose market share.
If you are claiming that you have redundancies because ‘AI’ is increasing productivity, then one of the following is true:
- Your leadership team does not understand market economics (in which case, investors should worry that the board has not replaced obviously incompetent leadership).
- You are an unchallengeable monopoly and have already filled all adjacent markets and have literally no possibility of growth (in which case, investors should take note and set their price predictions based on today’s revenue, with no expectation of future growth, which would wipe out over 80% of Meta’s market cap).
- You are lying about productivity gains (in which case, investors should worry about what else you’re lying about and should start prodding the SEC to investigate).
@david_chisnall I think it is clear to everybody except investors. Or maybe even to them, but they are just waiting for the best moment to get the biggest profit before the bubble explode.
-
RE: https://mstdn.social/@rysiek/116226720041425679
Louder for people at the back:
If ‘AI’ gives you a 20% productivity increase, in an economic system that rewards growth at the expense of everything else, the rational thing for any company to do is use that productivity increase to expand into new markets. This may involve some redundancies because you need different skills for the new opportunities but they will be matched by increased hiring in the other areas. If you and your competitors both see a 20% increase in productivity and you use it to make people redundant and they use it to ship more products in more areas, then they will grow at your expense. Their products will be better than yours and you will lose market share.
If you are claiming that you have redundancies because ‘AI’ is increasing productivity, then one of the following is true:
- Your leadership team does not understand market economics (in which case, investors should worry that the board has not replaced obviously incompetent leadership).
- You are an unchallengeable monopoly and have already filled all adjacent markets and have literally no possibility of growth (in which case, investors should take note and set their price predictions based on today’s revenue, with no expectation of future growth, which would wipe out over 80% of Meta’s market cap).
- You are lying about productivity gains (in which case, investors should worry about what else you’re lying about and should start prodding the SEC to investigate).
You are leaving out the most likely one: you have overhired in the zero interest / pandemic era and are using AI as a useful cover to hide the fact
-
RE: https://mstdn.social/@rysiek/116226720041425679
Louder for people at the back:
If ‘AI’ gives you a 20% productivity increase, in an economic system that rewards growth at the expense of everything else, the rational thing for any company to do is use that productivity increase to expand into new markets. This may involve some redundancies because you need different skills for the new opportunities but they will be matched by increased hiring in the other areas. If you and your competitors both see a 20% increase in productivity and you use it to make people redundant and they use it to ship more products in more areas, then they will grow at your expense. Their products will be better than yours and you will lose market share.
If you are claiming that you have redundancies because ‘AI’ is increasing productivity, then one of the following is true:
- Your leadership team does not understand market economics (in which case, investors should worry that the board has not replaced obviously incompetent leadership).
- You are an unchallengeable monopoly and have already filled all adjacent markets and have literally no possibility of growth (in which case, investors should take note and set their price predictions based on today’s revenue, with no expectation of future growth, which would wipe out over 80% of Meta’s market cap).
- You are lying about productivity gains (in which case, investors should worry about what else you’re lying about and should start prodding the SEC to investigate).
@david_chisnall Tell me he's not a reptilian.
You can't. -
RE: https://mstdn.social/@rysiek/116226720041425679
Louder for people at the back:
If ‘AI’ gives you a 20% productivity increase, in an economic system that rewards growth at the expense of everything else, the rational thing for any company to do is use that productivity increase to expand into new markets. This may involve some redundancies because you need different skills for the new opportunities but they will be matched by increased hiring in the other areas. If you and your competitors both see a 20% increase in productivity and you use it to make people redundant and they use it to ship more products in more areas, then they will grow at your expense. Their products will be better than yours and you will lose market share.
If you are claiming that you have redundancies because ‘AI’ is increasing productivity, then one of the following is true:
- Your leadership team does not understand market economics (in which case, investors should worry that the board has not replaced obviously incompetent leadership).
- You are an unchallengeable monopoly and have already filled all adjacent markets and have literally no possibility of growth (in which case, investors should take note and set their price predictions based on today’s revenue, with no expectation of future growth, which would wipe out over 80% of Meta’s market cap).
- You are lying about productivity gains (in which case, investors should worry about what else you’re lying about and should start prodding the SEC to investigate).
@david_chisnall This time, I wish there was more sarcasm in the toot, but you used it all up in a previous toot - like I said earlier 😬🙄
-
You are leaving out the most likely one: you have overhired in the zero interest / pandemic era and are using AI as a useful cover to hide the fact
@gotofritz I believe this is a special case of 'You are lying about productivity gains'.
-
RE: https://mstdn.social/@rysiek/116226720041425679
Louder for people at the back:
If ‘AI’ gives you a 20% productivity increase, in an economic system that rewards growth at the expense of everything else, the rational thing for any company to do is use that productivity increase to expand into new markets. This may involve some redundancies because you need different skills for the new opportunities but they will be matched by increased hiring in the other areas. If you and your competitors both see a 20% increase in productivity and you use it to make people redundant and they use it to ship more products in more areas, then they will grow at your expense. Their products will be better than yours and you will lose market share.
If you are claiming that you have redundancies because ‘AI’ is increasing productivity, then one of the following is true:
- Your leadership team does not understand market economics (in which case, investors should worry that the board has not replaced obviously incompetent leadership).
- You are an unchallengeable monopoly and have already filled all adjacent markets and have literally no possibility of growth (in which case, investors should take note and set their price predictions based on today’s revenue, with no expectation of future growth, which would wipe out over 80% of Meta’s market cap).
- You are lying about productivity gains (in which case, investors should worry about what else you’re lying about and should start prodding the SEC to investigate).
@david_chisnall funnily enough this sort of argument would be very familiar to Marxists, since the status of automation as commodity means productivity gains from automation are equally available to market participants, thus leaving labor as the main differentiator
-
RE: https://mstdn.social/@rysiek/116226720041425679
Louder for people at the back:
If ‘AI’ gives you a 20% productivity increase, in an economic system that rewards growth at the expense of everything else, the rational thing for any company to do is use that productivity increase to expand into new markets. This may involve some redundancies because you need different skills for the new opportunities but they will be matched by increased hiring in the other areas. If you and your competitors both see a 20% increase in productivity and you use it to make people redundant and they use it to ship more products in more areas, then they will grow at your expense. Their products will be better than yours and you will lose market share.
If you are claiming that you have redundancies because ‘AI’ is increasing productivity, then one of the following is true:
- Your leadership team does not understand market economics (in which case, investors should worry that the board has not replaced obviously incompetent leadership).
- You are an unchallengeable monopoly and have already filled all adjacent markets and have literally no possibility of growth (in which case, investors should take note and set their price predictions based on today’s revenue, with no expectation of future growth, which would wipe out over 80% of Meta’s market cap).
- You are lying about productivity gains (in which case, investors should worry about what else you’re lying about and should start prodding the SEC to investigate).
@david_chisnall this, of course, assumes investors are rational.
Which they are not.
And also, I am pretty sure a bunch of investors are doing the "I know this is a scam but I am going to ride it and I am smart enough to exit early when shit starts hitting the fan" dance.
Which, they are also not.
-
@david_chisnall Tell me he's not a reptilian.
You can't.@earsmeardius @david_chisnall ah yes. The absurd Babylon Brotherhood conspiracy theory. I can’t check now but there’s a hilarious video on YouTube called something like 7 signs you’re dating a reptile. Some people commenting (when I saw it) were totally taking the absolute piss but iirc some people were dead serious about it. As you would expect the ‘evidence’ can be explained by a lot of things. Obviously. Anyway it’s a hilarious video if you find it.
-
@earsmeardius @david_chisnall ah yes. The absurd Babylon Brotherhood conspiracy theory. I can’t check now but there’s a hilarious video on YouTube called something like 7 signs you’re dating a reptile. Some people commenting (when I saw it) were totally taking the absolute piss but iirc some people were dead serious about it. As you would expect the ‘evidence’ can be explained by a lot of things. Obviously. Anyway it’s a hilarious video if you find it.
@earsmeardius @david_chisnall it MIGHT be this:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6S3e2oj0m6o
Obviously total rubbish.
-
@gotofritz I believe this is a special case of 'You are lying about productivity gains'.
-
RE: https://mstdn.social/@rysiek/116226720041425679
Louder for people at the back:
If ‘AI’ gives you a 20% productivity increase, in an economic system that rewards growth at the expense of everything else, the rational thing for any company to do is use that productivity increase to expand into new markets. This may involve some redundancies because you need different skills for the new opportunities but they will be matched by increased hiring in the other areas. If you and your competitors both see a 20% increase in productivity and you use it to make people redundant and they use it to ship more products in more areas, then they will grow at your expense. Their products will be better than yours and you will lose market share.
If you are claiming that you have redundancies because ‘AI’ is increasing productivity, then one of the following is true:
- Your leadership team does not understand market economics (in which case, investors should worry that the board has not replaced obviously incompetent leadership).
- You are an unchallengeable monopoly and have already filled all adjacent markets and have literally no possibility of growth (in which case, investors should take note and set their price predictions based on today’s revenue, with no expectation of future growth, which would wipe out over 80% of Meta’s market cap).
- You are lying about productivity gains (in which case, investors should worry about what else you’re lying about and should start prodding the SEC to investigate).
@david_chisnall@infosec.exchange With the funny part being that if current investigation & research continues to be correct, it is mostly №3.
-
RE: https://mstdn.social/@rysiek/116226720041425679
Louder for people at the back:
If ‘AI’ gives you a 20% productivity increase, in an economic system that rewards growth at the expense of everything else, the rational thing for any company to do is use that productivity increase to expand into new markets. This may involve some redundancies because you need different skills for the new opportunities but they will be matched by increased hiring in the other areas. If you and your competitors both see a 20% increase in productivity and you use it to make people redundant and they use it to ship more products in more areas, then they will grow at your expense. Their products will be better than yours and you will lose market share.
If you are claiming that you have redundancies because ‘AI’ is increasing productivity, then one of the following is true:
- Your leadership team does not understand market economics (in which case, investors should worry that the board has not replaced obviously incompetent leadership).
- You are an unchallengeable monopoly and have already filled all adjacent markets and have literally no possibility of growth (in which case, investors should take note and set their price predictions based on today’s revenue, with no expectation of future growth, which would wipe out over 80% of Meta’s market cap).
- You are lying about productivity gains (in which case, investors should worry about what else you’re lying about and should start prodding the SEC to investigate).
@david_chisnall
Fourth bullet: you don't give a trump about who will buy your product or service.Does any #nazitech company works on autonomous agentic buyer now? If so whose money this shopping ai agent is meant to spent? Purchasing power of the #protein buyer population diminishes with each wave of layoffs.
-
RE: https://mstdn.social/@rysiek/116226720041425679
Louder for people at the back:
If ‘AI’ gives you a 20% productivity increase, in an economic system that rewards growth at the expense of everything else, the rational thing for any company to do is use that productivity increase to expand into new markets. This may involve some redundancies because you need different skills for the new opportunities but they will be matched by increased hiring in the other areas. If you and your competitors both see a 20% increase in productivity and you use it to make people redundant and they use it to ship more products in more areas, then they will grow at your expense. Their products will be better than yours and you will lose market share.
If you are claiming that you have redundancies because ‘AI’ is increasing productivity, then one of the following is true:
- Your leadership team does not understand market economics (in which case, investors should worry that the board has not replaced obviously incompetent leadership).
- You are an unchallengeable monopoly and have already filled all adjacent markets and have literally no possibility of growth (in which case, investors should take note and set their price predictions based on today’s revenue, with no expectation of future growth, which would wipe out over 80% of Meta’s market cap).
- You are lying about productivity gains (in which case, investors should worry about what else you’re lying about and should start prodding the SEC to investigate).
@david_chisnall Pay no nevermind to the fact that with every salvo of layoffs their stock prices jump up.
-
@david_chisnall this, of course, assumes investors are rational.
Which they are not.
And also, I am pretty sure a bunch of investors are doing the "I know this is a scam but I am going to ride it and I am smart enough to exit early when shit starts hitting the fan" dance.
Which, they are also not.
@rysiek @david_chisnall They mistook „never ride the bubble you aren’t blowing yourself” for a call to blow harder.
-
@david_chisnall Pay no nevermind to the fact that with every salvo of layoffs their stock prices jump up.
See the news today. That’s no longer happening, even Wall Street eventually catches onto the obvious.
-
See the news today. That’s no longer happening, even Wall Street eventually catches onto the obvious.
@david_chisnall It’s all a fuck around
-
undefined oblomov@sociale.network shared this topic
-
@david_chisnall this, of course, assumes investors are rational.
Which they are not.
And also, I am pretty sure a bunch of investors are doing the "I know this is a scam but I am going to ride it and I am smart enough to exit early when shit starts hitting the fan" dance.
Which, they are also not.
@rysiek @david_chisnall
It’s probably easier to explain as class warfare from the billionaire and temporarily embarrassed billionaire classes.
https://catandgirl.com/cat-and-girl-are-power-broke/
Feed RSS
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
@pipposkaio @kristiana @foto dai carino, ho visto anche il toccante documentario in cui inauguravano il monumento dedicato agli wham, devo dire che alla luce della musica che gira oggi il monumento ci sta tutto se dopo 40 anni ancora la ascoltiamo (o evitiamo di ascoltarla) :)
-
@tess but is it still a BOYfriend shirt if it belongs to your oversize GIRLfriend?
-
Sacchetti = Sacco + Vanzetti
-
Di fronte al mare la felicità è un’idea semplice,
Jean-Claude Izzo
frammento da Chourmo, Il cuore di Marsiglia (Edizioni e/o, 1999) ... https://cctm.website/jean-claude-izzo-francia/
#JeanClaudeIzzo #mare #cctmwebsite #anoipiaceleggere #leggere
-
Accidenti. Ci sono due buchi nel muro! 😑
Damn it. There are two holes in the wall! 😑
-
@grickle
I know a cat that even does it to visitors.
-
@Meliodas @devol @internet si ma cinny non mi aveva molto convinto, a dire il vero a parte element e fluffy trovo le altre un po' limitate o un po' buggose, quindi spero migliorino :)
