Going to have to challenge the math here ... 20% of 10 is two, not four. Granted, HR may cull four anyway, but in terms of what LLMs can currently do, HR is a perfect thing to replace. Literally all they do is follow rules to benefit the company. Sounds a bit like coding to me ...

The story is ultimately the same as it ever was: Businesses are looking for ways to make employees work harder while paying them less. But now an editor can be told to fix an AI-mangled manuscript and paid less... Because the business class has fallen under a collective delusion that the AI is actually good at its job.

My job recently shifted me to a new task. The hired 4 or 5 people to do my old work.

What I'm trying to say is that they'll fire as many people as they want and or say that even though the work is being done "more efficiently" they'll just offload more and more work onto employees anyways and do whatever they can to pay them less

Let's say AI increases productivity by 10%. So you'd reduce staff by one person out of every ten. But how many teams actually have ten people on them? My biggest development teams might've had 10 between PM, devs, and QA. But again cut one of your five devs and you reduce capacity, not increase it.

I've never worked anywhere that a 10% increase in productivity could justify cutting a person. I'm sure those places are out there, but it seems uncommon.

It might let them cut staff off they can overwork their people that much more, but a lot of people are stretched to capacity even now.