Skip to content

Microsoft axe another 9000 in continued AI push

Technology
24 20 9
  • I know at Lemmy we usually don't read the article title and sure as hell won't read the actual article, so I'll just post this here for everyone: nowhere in the article does it say they are laying people off because of AI. It merely states 9000 people will be laid off, and separately MSFT has invested a lot in AI.

    A better reframe: huge tech company shifts focus.

    I get that, but there are other articles saying the same if not pushing it worse...
    My point is they are investing large amounts in AI and not people, refocus if you like but for many people AI isn't what they want. Mind you neither is office or Windows....

  • I get that, but there are other articles saying the same if not pushing it worse...
    My point is they are investing large amounts in AI and not people, refocus if you like but for many people AI isn't what they want. Mind you neither is office or Windows....

    Don't they lay this amount off every year?

    Their workforce is upwards of 200,000. During COVID it was only 100,000. 2006 it was 60,000. But they lay off 9000 and it's because of AI?

    Why is this AI and not just business as usual?

    I've been saying for a bit that these AI headlines in Lemmy are similar to anti immigrant headlines in Republican social media groups. I feel like this is just more evidence of it. It's yellow journalism tactics

  • Microsoft has confirmed it is to axe another 9000 with its continued push into AI. I just find it incredible because for me AI is NOT the answer in any way shape or form.....

    My favorite thing about Microsoft is that there's no longer anyone who works there that understands the windows compiling process and internal tools. Everything is built on top of the previous version of windows going back decades.

  • Don't they lay this amount off every year?

    Their workforce is upwards of 200,000. During COVID it was only 100,000. 2006 it was 60,000. But they lay off 9000 and it's because of AI?

    Why is this AI and not just business as usual?

    I've been saying for a bit that these AI headlines in Lemmy are similar to anti immigrant headlines in Republican social media groups. I feel like this is just more evidence of it. It's yellow journalism tactics

    Because a lot of the jobs are simply going as they have replaced people with AI. Here in the UK I know about 25000 jobs gone this year with businesses I've worked for as they are replaced with AI. Of course, I have about 90% less work this year as well because of AI

  • Hopefully this fosters a bunch of new software from these developers if hired at other companies or working freelance/solo/whatever.

    Not in my experience, jobs are just being lost to AI overall, as in the are simply replaced by AI. Here in the UK had whole departments replaced by AI like copywriters and summarising jobs

  • Don't they lay this amount off every year?

    Their workforce is upwards of 200,000. During COVID it was only 100,000. 2006 it was 60,000. But they lay off 9000 and it's because of AI?

    Why is this AI and not just business as usual?

    I've been saying for a bit that these AI headlines in Lemmy are similar to anti immigrant headlines in Republican social media groups. I feel like this is just more evidence of it. It's yellow journalism tactics

    Another factor is Section 174 and the hiring of H1B workers. Although Microsoft's official AI website lists many job openings, you're right that it's changing its focus, it's strange that they're changing focus so quickly. First it was the metaverse, then video games, and now it's AI. What's next? Quantum computing in the coming years, and pouring tons of money into it as if there were no tomorrow.

    It seems like tech companies are going through a midlife crisis, as are their shareholders, who want to be on the cutting edge and end up executing poorly. But they want to be on this trend because they don't want to be in the same situation as Apple, which wasn't on the cutting edge and its shareholders are suing it.

  • The thing is, if they just pared those claims down a bit, they'd be accurate. Switch from "Copilot can build an entire application for you from scratch while giving you a blowjob" to "Copilot can help developers by automating some repetitive and time-consuming tasks," and you still have a good thing.

    If they marketed on the actual capability, customer executives won't be as eager to open their wallet. Get them thinking they can reduce headcount and they'll fall over themselves. You tell them your staff will remain about the same but some facets of their job will be easier, and they are less likely to recognize the value.

  • I thought the new tax cuts for billionaires were going to create more jobs…

    With all the deportations of illegal immigrants there will be tons of open jobs (that pay next to nothing).

  • Another factor is Section 174 and the hiring of H1B workers. Although Microsoft's official AI website lists many job openings, you're right that it's changing its focus, it's strange that they're changing focus so quickly. First it was the metaverse, then video games, and now it's AI. What's next? Quantum computing in the coming years, and pouring tons of money into it as if there were no tomorrow.

    It seems like tech companies are going through a midlife crisis, as are their shareholders, who want to be on the cutting edge and end up executing poorly. But they want to be on this trend because they don't want to be in the same situation as Apple, which wasn't on the cutting edge and its shareholders are suing it.

    Apple is being sued because they announced and demonstrated all of these AI features and then never delivered. They are actually doing good work in the AI field, including a recent paper that demonstrates that AI/LLM technology is incapable of reasoning, and any apparent logic seen in current approaches is simply an illusion. It’s not that they “aren’t moving fast enough”, it’s that they intentionally lied about their capabilities and timelines.

  • Microsoft has confirmed it is to axe another 9000 with its continued push into AI. I just find it incredible because for me AI is NOT the answer in any way shape or form.....

    AI might be a convenient excuse but it is my understanding this all relates to a change in US tax code that no longer allows a company to write off research and development.

  • Microsoft has confirmed it is to axe another 9000 with its continued push into AI. I just find it incredible because for me AI is NOT the answer in any way shape or form.....

    I often wonder these days why anyone would have any interest in working for the likes of Microsoft or the other big names. Unless I am just severely underestimating how good that comp package is it seems like knowing you will get the ax within 5 years of your start date more than likely would really dump cold water on the whole affair.

  • Don't they lay this amount off every year?

    Their workforce is upwards of 200,000. During COVID it was only 100,000. 2006 it was 60,000. But they lay off 9000 and it's because of AI?

    Why is this AI and not just business as usual?

    I've been saying for a bit that these AI headlines in Lemmy are similar to anti immigrant headlines in Republican social media groups. I feel like this is just more evidence of it. It's yellow journalism tactics

    Exactly. Everyone likes to blame AI right now, but the actual reality is that everything has been getting more automated, centralized, efficient, etc. What used to be an entire office of people using typewriters and paper and pens and file cabinets is now a single SQL database with some code doing analysis and reports. What used to be an entire team of programmers and analysts can now be a handful of people using AI and pre built templates or software. AI is just the next evolution of an already existing story of evolving industries. Similarly 1 farmer in an ACed tractor can now sow and reap entire fields of food that used to be hundreds of people for days in the hot sun.

    We don't need to be afraid of the technology, but we also don't want to move so fast that we lay off thousands of people all at once and they have no other job to go to.

    We COULD, in theory demand that every worker that gets replaced by AI and laid off or fired in any way gets a retirement or UBI or something. Some small cut of their former paycheck, but we all know what is about to happen, the few executives at the top are going to fire more and more people and automate more and more things and collect all of the profits and wealth for themselves and leave the rest of us to starve. But that's what the Republicans want, it's the "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" party, which in practice just means screw you, I got lucky and got mine.

    The only good thing about AI is that, in theory, anyone could train up their own ML system and profit off what it does. That does give the command person the potential to enter industries they didn't before. Similar to the movable type printing press suddenly opening the way for more people to publish a book. Or the Internet opening the way for me to talk to you where we couldn't have like this 40 years ago.

    All of that to say, in a long way, we create more and better technology and tools as a species, it's what we do. We need to embrace that, but also be mindful of what we are creating and for what purposes. Splitting the atom can provide power to entire cities or destroy them. So too could AI provide something good for mankind, but could also destroy.

  • I often wonder these days why anyone would have any interest in working for the likes of Microsoft or the other big names. Unless I am just severely underestimating how good that comp package is it seems like knowing you will get the ax within 5 years of your start date more than likely would really dump cold water on the whole affair.

    I work at big tech (not MS) and yes, the comp package really is that good, though not as good as it used to be. I immediately doubled my total comp when I came here from my last job, and now it's ~5x. I could retire right now if I wanted, so I don't care about layoffs anymore.

  • I know at Lemmy we usually don't read the article title and sure as hell won't read the actual article, so I'll just post this here for everyone: nowhere in the article does it say they are laying people off because of AI. It merely states 9000 people will be laid off, and separately MSFT has invested a lot in AI.

    A better reframe: huge tech company shifts focus.

    This is cover for the fact that they have zero planning and over hired during covid. And now with the tariffs and impending economic downturn, they are nodding and winning that this is because of AI and not that the management teams are terrible at the things they are responsible for (forecasting and budgeting).

  • I often wonder these days why anyone would have any interest in working for the likes of Microsoft or the other big names. Unless I am just severely underestimating how good that comp package is it seems like knowing you will get the ax within 5 years of your start date more than likely would really dump cold water on the whole affair.

    Yeah my friend is dating a Google recruiter and he overhears some absurd offers. Like, a reasonable person could retire on a few years at that salary.

    I have a hypothesis that rich people are bad at money

  • 133 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    12 Aufrufe
    01189998819991197253@infosec.pub0
    we're at war with eastasia. We've always been at war with eastasia. Big Brother Really has "trust me bro" energy.
  • Uber, Lyft oppose some bills that aim to prevent assaults during rides

    Technology technology
    12
    94 Stimmen
    12 Beiträge
    35 Aufrufe
    F
    California is not Colorado nor is it federal No shit, did you even read my comment? Regulations already exist in every state that ride share companies operate in, including any state where taxis operate. People are already not supposed to sexually assault their passengers. Will adding another regulation saying they shouldn’t do that, even when one already exists, suddenly stop it from happening? No. Have you even looked at the regulations in Colorado for ride share drivers and companies? I’m guessing not. Here are the ones that were made in 2014: https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/2021/title-40/article-10-1/part-6/section-40-10-1-605/#%3A~%3Atext=§+40-10.1-605.+Operational+Requirements+A+driver+shall+not%2Ca+ride%2C+otherwise+known+as+a+“street+hail”. Here’s just one little but relevant section: Before a person is permitted to act as a driver through use of a transportation network company's digital network, the person shall: Obtain a criminal history record check pursuant to the procedures set forth in section 40-10.1-110 as supplemented by the commission's rules promulgated under section 40-10.1-110 or through a privately administered national criminal history record check, including the national sex offender database; and If a privately administered national criminal history record check is used, provide a copy of the criminal history record check to the transportation network company. A driver shall obtain a criminal history record check in accordance with subparagraph (I) of paragraph (a) of this subsection (3) every five years while serving as a driver. A person who has been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol in the previous seven years before applying to become a driver shall not serve as a driver. If the criminal history record check reveals that the person has ever been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to any of the following felony offenses, the person shall not serve as a driver: (c) (I) A person who has been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol in the previous seven years before applying to become a driver shall not serve as a driver. If the criminal history record check reveals that the person has ever been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to any of the following felony offenses, the person shall not serve as a driver: An offense involving fraud, as described in article 5 of title 18, C.R.S.; An offense involving unlawful sexual behavior, as defined in section 16-22-102 (9), C.R.S.; An offense against property, as described in article 4 of title 18, C.R.S.; or A crime of violence, as described in section 18-1.3-406, C.R.S. A person who has been convicted of a comparable offense to the offenses listed in subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (c) in another state or in the United States shall not serve as a driver. A transportation network company or a third party shall retain true and accurate results of the criminal history record check for each driver that provides services for the transportation network company for at least five years after the criminal history record check was conducted. A person who has, within the immediately preceding five years, been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to a felony shall not serve as a driver. Before permitting an individual to act as a driver on its digital network, a transportation network company shall obtain and review a driving history research report for the individual. An individual with the following moving violations shall not serve as a driver: More than three moving violations in the three-year period preceding the individual's application to serve as a driver; or A major moving violation in the three-year period preceding the individual's application to serve as a driver, whether committed in this state, another state, or the United States, including vehicular eluding, as described in section 18-9-116.5, C.R.S., reckless driving, as described in section 42-4-1401, C.R.S., and driving under restraint, as described in section 42-2-138, C.R.S. A transportation network company or a third party shall retain true and accurate results of the driving history research report for each driver that provides services for the transportation network company for at least three years. So all sorts of criminal history, driving record, etc checks have been required since 2014. Colorado were actually the first state in the USA to implement rules like this for ride share companies lol.
  • Mergulhe em Aventuras Digitais com a MerwomanPG

    Technology technology
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    10 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 1 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    6 Aufrufe
    A
    If you're a developer, a startup founder, or part of a small team, you've poured countless hours into building your web application. You've perfected the UI, optimized the database, and shipped features your users love. But in the rush to build and deploy, a critical question often gets deferred: is your application secure? For many, the answer is a nervous "I hope so." The reality is that without a proper defense, your application is exposed to a barrage of automated attacks hitting the web every second. Threats like SQL Injection, Cross-Site Scripting (XSS), and Remote Code Execution are not just reserved for large enterprises; they are constant dangers for any application with a public IP address. The Security Barrier: When Cost and Complexity Get in the Way The standard recommendation is to place a Web Application Firewall (WAF) in front of your application. A WAF acts as a protective shield, inspecting incoming traffic and filtering out malicious requests before they can do any damage. It’s a foundational piece of modern web security. So, why doesn't everyone have one? Historically, robust WAFs have been complex and expensive. They required significant budgets, specialized knowledge to configure, and ongoing maintenance, putting them out of reach for students, solo developers, non-profits, and early-stage startups. This has created a dangerous security divide, leaving the most innovative and resource-constrained projects the most vulnerable. But that is changing. Democratizing Security: The Power of a Community WAF Security should be a right, not a privilege. Recognizing this, the landscape is shifting towards more accessible, community-driven tools. The goal is to provide powerful, enterprise-grade protection to everyone, for free. This is the principle behind the HaltDos Community WAF. It's a no-cost, perpetually free Web Application Firewall designed specifically for the community that has been underserved for too long. It’s not a stripped-down trial version; it’s a powerful security tool designed to give you immediate and effective protection against the OWASP Top 10 and other critical web threats. What Can You Actually Do with It? With a community WAF, you can deploy a security layer in minutes that: Blocks Malicious Payloads: Get instant, out-of-the-box protection against common attack patterns like SQLi, XSS, RCE, and more. Stops Bad Bots: Prevent malicious bots from scraping your content, attempting credential stuffing, or spamming your forms. Gives You Visibility: A real-time dashboard shows you exactly who is trying to attack your application and what methods they are using, providing invaluable security intelligence. Allows Customization: You can add your own custom security rules to tailor the protection specifically to your application's logic and technology stack. The best part? It can be deployed virtually anywhere—on-premises, in a private cloud, or with any major cloud provider like AWS, Azure, or Google Cloud. Get Started in Minutes You don't need to be a security guru to use it. The setup is straightforward, and the value is immediate. Protecting the project, you've worked so hard on is no longer a question of budget. Download: Get the free Community WAF from the HaltDos site. Deploy: Follow the simple instructions to set it up with your web server (it’s compatible with Nginx, Apache, and others). Secure: Watch the dashboard as it begins to inspect your traffic and block threats in real-time. Security is a journey, but it must start somewhere. For developers, startups, and anyone running a web application on a tight budget, a community WAF is the perfect first step. It's powerful, it's easy, and it's completely free.
  • 465 Stimmen
    133 Beiträge
    147 Aufrufe
    B
    If an industry can't survive without resorting to copyright theft then maybe it's not a viable business. Imagine the business that could exist if only they didn't have to pay copyright holders. What makes the AI industry any different or more special?
  • 77 Stimmen
    22 Beiträge
    65 Aufrufe
    F
    https://web.archive.org/web/20250526132003/https://www.yahoo.com/news/cias-communications-suffered-catastrophic-compromise-started-iran-090018710.html?ref=404media.co
  • How the Signal Knockoff App TeleMessage Got Hacked in 20 Minutes

    Technology technology
    31
    1
    188 Stimmen
    31 Beiträge
    94 Aufrufe
    P
    Not to mention TeleMessage violated the terms of the GPL. Signal is under gpl and I can't find TeleMessage's code anywhere. Edit: it appears it is online somewhere just not in a github repo or anything https://micahflee.com/heres-the-source-code-for-the-unofficial-signal-app-used-by-trump-officials/
  • *deleted by creator*

    Technology technology
    4
    1
    0 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    16 Aufrufe
    O
    I feel like I'm in those years of You really want a 3d TV, right? Right? 3D is what you've been waiting for, right? all over again, but with a different technology. It will be VR's turn again next. I admit I'm really rooting for affordable, real-world, daily-use AR though.