https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/29/tech/ai-anth...ei-unemployment

Amodei believes the AI tools that Anthropic and other companies are racing to build could eliminate half of entry-level, white-collar jobs and spike unemployment to as much as 20% in the next one to five years, he told Axios on Wednesday

People sometimes comfort themselves (by) saying, ‘Oh, but the economy always creates new jobs,’” University of Virginia business and economics professor Anton Korinek said in an email. “That’s true historically, but unlike in the past, intelligent machines will be able to do the new jobs as well, and probably learn them faster than us humans.”

To determine which company is more efficient and economical, we need to consider the cost structure and the output or productivity enabled by the staff and their AI usage. Both companies have the same total monthly salary cost of $50,000, but they differ in staff size and individual salaries. Let’s analyze the scenarios:
Company A: 10 staff, each with a salary of $5,000/month, total cost $50,000/month.
Company B: 5 staff, each with a salary of $10,000/month, total cost $50,000/month.
Both companies have access to AI, which we assume enhances staff productivity equally, as the problem doesn’t specify differences in AI capabilities or usage.
Key Considerations:
Staff Productivity and Specialization:
Company A has 10 staff, potentially allowing for more task distribution, specialization, or parallel work. With AI, each employee’s productivity is enhanced, and the larger team could handle a higher volume or variety of tasks.

Company B has 5 staff, each earning twice as much. Higher salaries often imply more skilled, experienced, or specialized employees. With AI, these employees might produce higher-quality outputs or handle more complex tasks efficiently.

Economical Efficiency:
Cost per Employee: Company A pays $5,000 per employee, while Company B pays $10,000. If the output per employee in Company B is significantly higher due to greater expertise or efficiency (amplified by AI), Company B could be more economical.

Overhead and Scalability: Company A, with more staff, may incur higher non-salary costs (e.g., benefits, workspace, equipment), which aren’t mentioned but could impact total costs. Company B, with fewer staff, likely has lower overhead, making it potentially more economical.

AI Utilization:
Since all staff in both companies can use AI, the efficiency depends on how AI augments their work. If AI automates routine tasks, Company A’s larger team might handle more diverse tasks. If AI enhances high-skill work, Company B’s smaller, higher-paid team might leverage AI for greater impact.

Output and Value:
Without specific data on output (e.g., revenue, projects completed, or value generated), we assume higher-paid staff in Company B are more skilled. If each of Company B’s 5 employees produces at least twice the output of Company A’s employees (due to expertise and AI), Company B could be more efficient.

If outputs are similar per employee, Company A’s larger team might produce more total output, making it more efficient.

Analysis:
If output per employee is equal: Company A is more efficient because 10 employees can produce more total output than 5 for the same cost.

If Company B’s employees are more skilled: Company B could be more efficient if each employee’s output (enhanced by AI) significantly exceeds that of Company A’s employees. For example, if each of Company B’s employees produces at least twice the value of Company A’s due to higher skills, Company B is more economical.

Risk and Flexibility: Company B, with fewer staff, faces higher risk if an employee leaves or underperforms, as each employee represents a larger portion of the workforce. Company A has more redundancy and flexibility.

Conclusion:
Without specific data on employee output or AI impact, Company A (10 staff at $5,000 each) is likely more efficient and economical because it has more employees producing output for the same total cost, assuming similar productivity per employee. However, if Company B’s higher-paid staff are significantly more productive (e.g., due to expertise or better AI utilization), Company B could be more economical. To confirm, data on output per employee or the nature of their tasks would be needed.
If you have additional details (e.g., employee output, AI impact, or company goals), I can refine the analysis!

RM10k 5090 tok mat lan also can

go back play game with my 4070s...

I asked Grok this,

If the company has 10 staff, and each of them has a salary of $5000 and all can use AI, that would cost the company $ 50,000 per month.

If the company has 5 staff, and each them has a salary of $10,000, and can use AI, that would also cost the company $50,000 per month.

Which company is more efficient and economical?

from Ai analysis logic and conclusion, can extrapolate that the most efficient company is one that hires everyone in the world and pays them $50000/world population each.

Well duh , problem is a lot of ppl kept saying AI is the future but not many deep dive to understand AI, all just know how to use the surface function and don't usually get the result they want.

If you really want to make money you need to grab the base model and personalize it to build function exactly as what you want, which is much harder to learn and do, as you have to tinker around and really understand how AI work to really be the one guy that company can't fire.

Meanwhile the group that deny anything that has to do with AI will join the dinosaur era.

Sooner or later someone really smart gonna figure out how to build a jonny 5, or chappie .... that is when another war gonna break out when AI can replicate themselves.

But for now I'm expecting maybe the latest hot thrend that is going to come up is "real steel" kind of fighting bots. China tested the lausy version, maybe amarica gonna make it a reality .....