(Yes, this could be a really stupid decision for the company in question. I agree with you. I'm not saying what should happen. I'm saying what will happen, and that that is really bad.)
Or maybe you're implying that reducing the costs changes this equation?
It's okay to not think every technology under the sun is a good thing. You don't have to have heart-eyes emojis for the immiseration machine.
I believe AGI can help small businesses have higher margins for the same service level - but lower cost.
It is, however, a really convenient excuse for people who don't regularly think about how people who don't work "above the API" actually exist in the world.
Have you ever run a business that employed other people and relied on operational income rather than venture capital to function?
Because this "obvious play" is a screaming red flag for misunderstanding the fundamentals of how business works when money isn't free and speculative.
If it's like many businesses in the classification world, they aren't lacking for work, so it's more like they'll be able to do 10x the work done by keeping the same number of people.
Why would 50% for 0.1% be different? 30% for 0.01%?
This is the enshittification spiral to which I refer.
If I was paying someone for labeling or classification, and the quality dropped to 90%, 50%, 30% accuracy, I'd quickly fire them.
