|
| Featured Contents |
| Question of the Day |
| The Voice of the DBA |
The Quiet Part Apparently, Meta did what a lot of employees suspect their management will do: use AI to lay off people. In this case, there is a report (and lawsuit) that Meta used it's AI-integrated HR platform to make decisions about who to let go in a layoff. The rumor is that the AI used productivity metrics to choose who was the target of the layoff. As with a lot of AI failures, this appears to be another case of poor communication guiding the AI, or the AI not actually taking individual situations into account. A number of the people terminated were on maternity/paternity leave, which is a protected activity. Others may have been on other medical leave, though for privacy reasons, the article doesn't have firm data to prove this. The lawsuit will likely bring more of this out, but this appears to be a case not just of AI making decisions, but of poor behavior from management. Plaintiffs were discouraged from taking leave off, which is something sh****y humans have said to people for decades. We need you; your baby or family isn't important, so don't use your leave. It's one aspect of working in the US that is way worse than overseas, where there are more employee protections. Meta disputes the case, saying the AI didn't make decisions. However, that brings out an interesting point. If the AI recommends things, who's responsible? The humans, right? They still have to sign off on the decision. If they don't perform due diligence, they're still responsible, correct? I think so; after all, I'm responsible for code the AI writes if I commit it. Even if an agent does the work, I have to oversee it and approve (or grant permissions for) the actions. I. Am. Responsible. Trusting an AI to do a lot of work is like trusting a lot of smart, but very inexperienced staffers to work in your environment. There are always inconsistencies and reasons why we might code something, configure something, or deploy something a certain way. What seems like a good way to tackle the situation from the outside doesn't always make sense when you have experience. Humans often have experience that AI agents lack. LLMs are relatively stateless, and while we can provide context, give them guidance, and provide comprehensive codebases, they still sometimes do silly things. This can be problematic, especially with database changes, which are stateful and disruptive to rollback. AI agents can make mistakes much like humans, only faster. Much, much faster. Labor is one of the most expensive parts of many organizations' budgets. Plenty of management would like to replace relatively expensive humans with cheaper tokens. That isn't working out as well in practice, despite lots of experiments. Hopefully, other organizations realize that AI is a tool, not a replacement for humans, and we can't trust it or even believe it's outputs without some human judgment. Steve Jones - SSC Editor Join the debate, and respond to today's editorial on the forums |
| Featured Contents |
