Benioff Says Salesforce Won't Hire Engineers This Year Due To AI (sfstandard.com)
- Reference: 0176573849
- News link: https://slashdot.org/story/25/02/28/2220221/benioff-says-salesforce-wont-hire-engineers-this-year-due-to-ai
- Source link: https://sfstandard.com/2025/02/27/salesforce-marcbenioff-layoffs-tech-agents/
> "My message to CEOs right now is that we are the last generation to manage only humans," Benioff said Wednesday on Salesforce's earnings call, indicating that companies of the future will have hybrid human and digital workforces. Benioff added that Salesforce's mission is to become "the No. 1 digital labor provider, period" to other companies.
[1] https://sfstandard.com/2025/02/27/salesforce-marcbenioff-layoffs-tech-agents/
Weird (Score:3)
A company with less than stellar financials wants to not hire humans? I am shocked.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah. It is very important context that he said this on an earnings call when the stock got smashed by their bad projections.
"It's OK, because with these layoffs our own products will replace the people we fire to make up the losses."
I mean sure. Maybe. It's not impossible that will go well.
But the article is like "it's official, AI is coming for tech jobs." No. This makes absolutely nothing official, it is earnings call business as usual.
Re: (Score:2)
Short the stock, another executive succumbing to the lie that AI is stable, productive, and without fault-- more so than the people that won't be hired.
Buying into that foam and goo, why do we need Benioff? His tutelage at the knee of Larry Ellison? How many gigajoules will Salesforce burn through GPU cores to find that his AI investments were fools-play?
Short the stock. Salesforce will find that others can play a similar game of reliance on unperfected, unproductive tech.
Thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks for letting us know you're a shitty leader!
keep in mind (Score:1)
hes an absolute shit ceo who is trying to sell his own bullshit.
What does it mean to "manage an AI"? (Score:2)
You can't manage an AI. That doesn't make sense. It's like managing a hamster or a dolphin or a horse. The only thing you every manage is the *humans* who wrangle the AI/hamster/horse.
Oh look (Score:4, Insightful)
Cue the "AI won't replace humans" crowd.
Re: Oh look (Score:2)
Right, because guy trying to sell you AI said so.
You remind me of middle managers that buy RPA tools because the RPA salesman told him that he won't need to hire software developers anymore. And now you're stuck with vendor lock-in on a product that doesn't scale.
Re: (Score:2)
So it's not about not needing to hire developers at anymore. What this does is it makes your developers a good 20 to 30% more productive. That means you can hire 20 to 30% fewer developers and get the same results.
In the old days we have this thing called competition and it meant that you couldn't just sit on your laurels. But then we went all in on pro-corporate candidates because they were really really good at pushing our buttons and going booga booga booga with various moral panics. You know the one
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen very little evidence AI is actually doing much damage to the jobs market. Historically these kinds of marginal productivity gains have been paired rapidly with an expansion of services offered. A developer that's 20% more productive ends up on the net expanding their productivity to 20% more customers. The market for software and automation is no where near saturated.
What has ample evidence is that as companies have refined remote infrastructure after covid they've begun offshoring large amounts o
Re: (Score:2)
> So it's not about not needing to hire developers at anymore. What this does is it makes your developers a good 20 to 30% more productive. That means you can hire 20 to 30% fewer developers and get the same results.
Either that or it allows a business to scale as if you had 30% more developers at 10% the cost. This is exactly how technology that increases productivity has inevitably worked. Have you ever bothered to ask yourself why, despite this happening repeatedly throughout history, more and more people end up with jobs anyways? Of course not, that would require higher order brain function that you don't have.
> In the old days we have this thing called competition and it meant that you couldn't just sit on your laurels.
Which has what to do with your assertion that they need a third less developers? Oh that's right, nothing.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm the "shrinking co. hides slump behind AI" crowd.