Salesforces has entered a phase of public reckoning after senior executives publicly admitted that the company overestimated AI’s readiness
  • Armand1@lemmy.worldEnglish
    48·
    1 day ago

    What is this website used as a source?

    It doesn’t have sources, an about page, contact page or even proper navigation. Is it some sort of blog?

    Edit: I managed to manually navigate to their about page using the URL, and all the images there are badly AI generated, the content is meaningless.

    I don’t trust news sources that are not transparent, provide information about themselves or use AI for key resources. Even if I agree with the stance in their articles.

    For all I know, all of the content of the article is made up.

  • Feyd@programming.devEnglish
    651·
    1 day ago

    Silly that it has to use hedge language like not ready “yet” and “premature”. These executives fucked up and deserve to be roasted. They didn’t make an innocent mistake. They were grossly incompetent and should be losing their jobs for not doing even the most basic due diligence before making decisions that were not only bad for the affected employees but for their customers and the company itself.

    • Typhoon@lemmy.caEnglish
      50·
      1 day ago

      “We assumed the technology was further along than it actually was,” one executive said privately

      They fired 4000 people on an assumption. They should never hold a position of responsibility again.

  • panda_abyss@lemmy.caEnglish
    56·
    1 day ago

    Salesforce has now begun reframing its AI strategy, shifting away from the language of replacement toward what executives call “rebalancing.” Rather than eliminating roles outright, the company says future AI deployments will emphasize augmentation, with humans retained in decision-critical and customer-facing positions.

    This was so obviously the solution that should hav been tried first

    Salesforce’s reversal has become a reference point in ongoing debates about AI and employment. While automation remains a central pillar of the company’s long-term strategy, its experience has underscored a growing consensus among executives and analysts: AI can reduce workloads, but replacing skilled workers too quickly carries real operational risk.

    I don’t get why boards don’t dump these CEOs. I’m sure they’re happy with the reduced costs from firing half the employees, but to not consider the potential issues and actually vet the quality was such a bad decision. The facts are there was zero advantage to being the first to do AI customer support, but firing half your employees is irreversible.

    • Kirp123@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      1 day ago

      A lot of these companies chase short term gains to look good on their quarterly report. These CEOs were most likely lauded when they presented the lowered costs on that quarterly and most likely got some fat bonuses out of it too. Now that the chickens have come to roost they are scrambling but they can still get away by blaming it on other shit. Even if they do get removed they already made their money through those bonuses and they can find a different position where to fail upwards.

    • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      1 day ago

      I’m sure they’re happy with the reduced costs from firing half the employees, but to not consider the potential issues and actually vet the quality was such a bad decision

      Kind of becomes irrelevant when the initial reduced costs were probably decimated by secondary costs they hadn’t even considered, for example, time wasted by remaining employees now burdened with correcting the AI’s mistakes.

  • Jesus@lemmy.worldEnglish
    13·
    1 day ago

    Alternatively, Salesforce could invest in a user experience that isn’t a confusing PoS that requires 9000 customer service agents to help people get through it. Just say’n.