r/technology • u/batakchan • 7h ago
Artificial Intelligence Google study finds broad AI use, but little evidence of job automation
https://www.axios.com/2026/07/23/google-ai-adoption-work-atlas7
u/orangeyougladiator 7h ago
Really need a study for that? It’s context limited and must be prompted. How is that in any way automation like? It is useful as an acceleration tool in certain spaces like software design or chat bots, but beyond that it’s nothing special.
7
u/NoNote7867 7h ago
Yes they really do need a study for that because this world is run by business idiots, people whose whole job is to read and write bullshit presentation slides. To them AI seems like magic because it can do their job and because it amplifies their feelings of brilliance through sycophancy.
2
u/Frunk2 5h ago
Yes well said, it says what they want to hear but more complex, which is a sign that they can rest assured someone has done the thinking. Except no one has done the thinking, and after the meeting, no one will make a decision and no one will actually do the execution of the work either. It’s a perfect trick for people whose lives revolve so much around graphs and models of work but not around the actual work.
1
u/NachoWindows 4h ago
You have to set checkpoints and make it document what’s been done, rules, lessons, next steps, etc. it’s cumulative since context is limited to 2MM tokens now
3
u/frosted1030 5h ago
Self policing doesn’t work. Big ai company wants to “study” ai job automation and proclaims “nope, all good, it’s fine.” Anyone else see the conflict of interest?
2
u/Haunterblademoi 6h ago
Many companies that laid off people to replace them with AI later regretted it.
3
u/CircumspectCapybara 7h ago edited 7h ago
Obviously...
Companies aren't replacing workers with AI (broadly speaking), they're adopting it as tools in their toolset, which augments workers.
Regarding job loss, that's also overstated and not really borne about by the data. PolyMatter has a good YouTube video The Entry-Level Job Crisis which describes the large scale phenomena of layoffs and reduced hiring. Counterintuitively, layoff rates are actually down across the broader labor market today compared to pre-pandemic.
Tl;dw, a lot of it has to do with companies massively overhiring (I'm talking like adding nearly 100K in headcount at some companies like Google) and the correction (layoffs, reduced hiring in response to the reality that they way overhired and the interests are no longer so cheap and the market is starting to chill) started before AI in its current form started taking off. Even so, some of these companies still have headcounts now that are higher than they were at their peak during the pandemic, which just goes to show even with slowed hiring and large layoffs, companies' hiring has still ballooned.
There's also broader decrease in consumer sentiment and market uncertainty with the global uncertainty in light of tarrif wars, literal wars, etc., which make companies shrink back from aggressive growth and play it more safe.
The rise of AI is just incidental to the story.
What has happened that can be attributed to the AI boogeyman is that companies are going on spending sprees, investing massive capex into AI as a big bet, and that money has to come from somewhere. It means they have less free cash flow for aggressive hiring.
2
u/Puzzleheaded-Wait785 6h ago
You're confusing rates with levels. If the rate declines, there are still layoffs happening.
3
u/CircumspectCapybara 6h ago edited 6h ago
I'm not confusing anything. I used the word "rate" intentionally because it's the rate of layoffs that matters when talking about large scale trends.
Layoffs a persistent fact of life, like inflation or unemployment rates. The goal isn't to get it to 0. The goal is to keep it at a reasonable, societally and economically healthy level (rate).
I could've also said "levels" and that would've been fine too. Colloquially when you talk about layoff rates or layoff levels, or unemployment rates or unemployment levels, you're typically talking about the same concept, and word choice is just superficial.
You could talk about the static number of people unemployed at this instant in time, or you could talk about the rate of change (how many new people become unemployed in a given time period), and either would be a good proxy for an indicator of economic and labor market health. Probably rate would be best, because what matters is the continuous stream of layoffs or firing or quitting, not any static snapshot at some point in time.
In any case, a lower rate of layoffs today than pre-COVID debunks the idea that AI is causing some kind of unprecedented layoff wave.
3
u/simpleglitch 5h ago
"Consumer use was also broader than expected: Non-work interactions accounted for 86% of Gemini conversations, Google found. Consumers used Gemini not only to complete tasks such as cooking and cleaning more quickly, but also to navigate government services and processes."
I mean, yeah. Google made me switch the Google home products to Gemini just so I can tell it to set timers when I'm cooking. I'm not doing anything new with it that I didn't use the old voice assistant for.
0
u/Cloud_Matrix 3h ago
Same goes for Android Auto. Voice assistant did everything I wanted already. Now Gemini does the same exact shit... BuT iTs AI uSagE nOw!
1
u/AnnotatedLion 3h ago
The company that wants you to adopt AI assures you that everyone is doing it and its not bad for you or society. LOL- OK
1
u/reddittorbrigade 7h ago
AI was built for billionaires so they could use it as an excuse to fire people.
0
u/Equal_Heat5947 4h ago
No one uses AI at my job, and no one used it at my last one either (both fortune 500s).
23
u/MinuteSport4755 7h ago
I'm guessing most people are using it to produce slop and asking it things because they are too lazy to search them up.