This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Correlation doesn’t imply causation.
If you lay off 10% of your workforce, mostly juniors, and your KPIs are loose enough, there’s no reason to think that companies won’t succeed in pushing senior employees to meet them, mostly through overwork.
Also, certain companies track AI usage as a KPI in itself, so there’s a circular logic component to it.
If i produced 1000 widgets with zero defect and my replacrment produces 1000000, but they all have severe defects, is that counted as an increase in productivity?
Depends on what the targets are for the C-Suite, but in 2026 one could assume yes.
Given that some tech bros are measuring AI productivity in lines of code, yes, yes it does.
Then no. However if the replacement produces 1000000 widgets with 1000 rejects, then the boss might say - alright, we need more QA to catch those rejects and we're still X ahead, then yes. Productivity isn't measured by the output of one person of particular widget but the output of the unit as a whole, or more importantly the profit of the firm altogether divided by its workers. So if the boss can get more output while controlling the quality to the point of the customer not noticing too much from our replacement, we both get a pink slip.
Define "productivity gains"
yup, why hire and train junior level devs when you can have an ai do it for you
its going to be really bad in a couple years when all the senior guys end up retiring and theres no new generation to replace them
Stanford: home of eugenics; birthplace of Peter Thiel's anti democracy; anti human, transhumanism ideology.
Be cautious.
Study finds water is wet.
