Klarna says its AI assistant does the work of 700 people after it laid off 700 people - eviltoast

Klarna says its AI assistant does the work of 700 people after it laid off 700 people::undefined

  • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    It’s not blind trust to think companies probably try to make the most money out of the available resources. It’s sorta what they do

    • ???@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      It’s not blind trust to think companies probably try to make the most money out of the available resources. It’s sorta what they do

      Okay, just to be clear here, we’re talking about the belief that Klarna has sufficiently motivated this decision to lay these people off and actually has good KPIs that measure the performance, specifically that of customer care agents… not that companies make money with resrouces.

      Usually people with this kind of opinion like yours maybe haven’t experienced work at a large company or maybe don’t understand that office politics are alive and kicking. But I’d still like to hear why… Let me ask you, what makes you think Klarna is being honest about their measurements?

      • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        You don’t think a big company like Klarna has metrics to follow the efficiency of their workers? Even small businesses where I live that and every single big corporation. What makes you think Klarna would be different?

        not that companies make money with resrouces.

        You misunderstood. I said try to make most money out of the resources, so efficiency. That’s what we’re talking about…

        Usually people with this kind of opinion like yours maybe haven’t experienced work at a large company or maybe don’t understand that office politics are alive and kicking

        Lol.

        Let me ask you, what makes you think Klarna is being honest about their measurements?

        It’s not very hard to believe what they’re saying here and they’d be the ones to have those metrics. So simple 1+1.

        • ???@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          You don’t think a big company like Klarna has metrics to follow the efficiency of their workers? Even small businesses where I live that and every single big corporation. What makes you think Klarna would be different?

          I never said they have no KPIs. What I said is their KPIs are likely broken, just like almost every other large company in existence.

          You misunderstood. I said try to make most money out of the resources, so efficiency. That’s what we’re talking about…

          I think you’re the one who misunderstood. So for reference again, I am talking about this: about the belief that Klarna has sufficiently motivated this decision to lay these people off and actually has good KPIs that measure the performance, specifically that of customer care agents…

          I don’t see why or how I would want to discuss that a company is an entity that makes money through products from resources… think that’d be a bit too basic, no?

          Lol.

          ?

          It’s not very hard to believe what they’re saying here and they’d be the ones to have those metrics. So simple 1+1.

          But can you explain what makes you trust them? What gives a company like Klarna a high trust ratio in your eyes? They don’t seem to have provided those metrics in any way, just spelling it out in words. So how can we trust them?

          It’s not very hard to believe what they’re saying here

          Maybe not for you, but the rest of us are skeptics and would like to know what exactly makes this easy for you to believe. Thanks for explaining in advance.

          • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            You started the discussion off from my joke comment saying that they deserve a study for them to be laid off. Consider where this started.

            It’s not very hard to believe what they’re saying here and they’d be the ones to have those metrics. So simple 1+1.

            But can you explain what makes you trust them?

            would like to know what exactly makes this easy for you to believe

            butwhymalemodels.avif

            I just explained why their claim isn’t hard to believe. You even quoted it??

            Maybe not for you

            Well no shit, not like I’m claiming to speak on someone else’s behalf

            • ???@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              I just explained why their claim isn’t hard to believe. You even quoted it??

              Sorry, let’s pretend I’m a total idiot, could you quote it for me?

              • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                It’s not very hard to believe what they’re saying here and they’d be the ones to have those metrics. So simple 1+1.

                Easy to believe them when the claim itself is easy to believe and they’d be the ones to have those metrics. So you take the easy to believe claim (1) and you take them being in the position to have those metrics (another 1, but let’s call it 2 to differentiate) so simple 1+2.

                • ???@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Easy to believe them when the claim itself is easy to believe and they’d be the ones to have those metrics. So you take the easy to believe claim (1) and you take them being in the position to have those metrics (another 1, but let’s call it 2 to differentiate) so simple 1+2.

                  Ummm, sorry but how is this an explanation?

                  “Why are they easy to believe?”… “Oh, it’s just not very hard to believe, they have the metrics, they said so! 1+1!”

                  It’s easy to believe because they are a big company and big companies have metrics?

                  But, what about the trust part? How does that make you trust them? What part of that is “enough” evidence for you to rationalize that they have a good motivation for laying off 700 people?

                  • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    It’s easy to believe because the claim (AI replacing the work of tons of workers) is easy to believe and out of anyone they’d be post positioned to know how well the AI compares to their workers. So not much of a leap to believe them here, that the AI can, could or has replaced the work of 700 people. Klarna seems to have something like 7000 workers so 10% being replaced by AI, for a company like Klarna? Yeah, I can see that happening. I’m honestly not sure why you are having such hard time with this. Maybe you don’t understand those two as separate things, the claim (AI could replace a ton of workers) and the data the company would have (knowing exactly how many it could replace).

                    But, what about the trust part?

                    You’ve been the only one talking about trust.