A.I. Doesn’t Have to Mean Layoffs - The New York Times

Oh, how heartening — a New York Times article has discovered that AI doesn't *have* to mean layoffs. Schneider Electric, a French multinational, decided to use AI in manufacturing to make workers more productive rather than replace them. Because when has a corporation ever prioritised worker welfare over cost-cutting when given a choice? The article trots out some economists who argue that augmentation yields 'bigger gains' than replacement. Bigger gains for whom, exactly? Shareholders nodding sagely over dividend increases, no doubt.

This cheerful piece conveniently glosses over the fact that most companies, when faced with a shiny new automation tool, reach for the layoff list before the training budget. The 'some economists' quoted — likely the same ones who assured us that offshoring would never hollow out the middle class — are now betting on managerial enlightenment. Meanwhile, corporate America has been practising the opposite: see SentinelOne, see every other tech firm that has blamed AI for job cuts while pocketing the savings.

But sure, let's pin our hopes on Schneider Electric as the model altruist. Maybe other firms will follow their example, right after they finish calculating how much severance they can save. The NYT wants us to believe that AI augmentation is a viable path — a charming thought, like believing your car insurance will actually cover everything. The punchline, as always, is that the choice between augmentation and replacement is made by the people who don't do either job. And they've already decided which kind of 'efficiency' pays better.