This is yet another example of something that's happening all acrossed tech: (Over?)Correcting for a systemic problem; due to either/both misidentifying the problem, or reaching for the wrong solution that promises to solve the issue regardless.
The Asserted problem: Labor force/expense is too high, or at least, higher than is now thought necessary.
The (IMO) core problem: Measuring professional success/skill primarily by the size of the team a person manages.
The asserted solution: AI replacing Labor to reduce inflated labor costs/pools.
While there is some inherent benefit there to reducing team sizes back down into allegedly functionally sized units, there is a lack of accountability and understanding as to why that's beneficial, as it at seems to be done either due to the lofty promise of AI (which I'm critical of), or a more brutalist/myopic approach of merely trying to make the big labor-cost number smaller to increase margin/reduce expenses. To be clear, while I'm a critic of AI, I fully acknowledge it can absolutely be helpful in many instances. The problem is that people are learning the wrong lessons from this, as they've improperly identified the issue, and why the force reduction is allegedly/appears to be working.
Obviously, YMMV on a case-by-case/team/company basis, but Intel is known for being guilty of "Bigger = Better" when it comes to team size, and their new CEO acknowledged this somewhat with their "Bureaucracy kills innovation" speech [0].
That said, what may be good for the company (even if done for the right reasons) can still hurt the communities it built/depend on it.
The Asserted problem: Labor force/expense is too high, or at least, higher than is now thought necessary.
The (IMO) core problem: Measuring professional success/skill primarily by the size of the team a person manages.
The asserted solution: AI replacing Labor to reduce inflated labor costs/pools.
While there is some inherent benefit there to reducing team sizes back down into allegedly functionally sized units, there is a lack of accountability and understanding as to why that's beneficial, as it at seems to be done either due to the lofty promise of AI (which I'm critical of), or a more brutalist/myopic approach of merely trying to make the big labor-cost number smaller to increase margin/reduce expenses. To be clear, while I'm a critic of AI, I fully acknowledge it can absolutely be helpful in many instances. The problem is that people are learning the wrong lessons from this, as they've improperly identified the issue, and why the force reduction is allegedly/appears to be working.
Obviously, YMMV on a case-by-case/team/company basis, but Intel is known for being guilty of "Bigger = Better" when it comes to team size, and their new CEO acknowledged this somewhat with their "Bureaucracy kills innovation" speech [0].
That said, what may be good for the company (even if done for the right reasons) can still hurt the communities it built/depend on it.
0: https://www.inc.com/kit-eaton/in-just-3-words-intels-new-ceo...