I think the layoff sucks, but there are proper ways to communicate it, and this was not the right way.
The proper process is for the manager to carry out this sensitive procedure—quickly, but with empathy. (I'm not a manager, but I'm sure it's easy to be a "Happiness Manager"; the coin has two sides.)
Even if individual meetings weren't possible, they could have just held a 150-to-1 live session. Saying the exact same thing as the video would have been different. Why? Because it wouldn't be a pre-recorded video.
For those who are willing to accept an employer sending a goodbye SMS, I have to wonder how much commitment you really had to that workplace. If you had none, fine, who cares. But if your commitment was more than just a transactional job, like someone selling groceries from 8:00 to 17:00, I don't think you'd want to work for a company that follows such processes.
This topic is also interesting to me because I have small children.
Currently, I view LLMs as huge enablers. They helped me create a side-project alongside my primary job, and they make development and almost anything related to knowledge work more interesting. I don't think they made me think less; rather, they made me think a lot more, work more, and absorb significantly more information. But I am a senior, motivated, curious, and skilled engineer with 15+ years of IT, Enterprise Networking, and Development experience.
There are a number of ways one can use this technology. You can use it as an enabler, or you can use it for cheating. The education system needs to adapt rapidly to address the challenges that are coming, which is often a significant issue (particularly in countries like Hungary). For example, consider an exam where you are allowed to use AI (similar to open-book exams), but the exam is designed in such a way that it is sufficiently difficult, so you can only solve it (even with AI assistance) if you possess deep and broad knowledge of the domain or topic. This is doable. Maybe the scoring system will be different, focusing not just on whether the solution works, but also on how elegant it is. Or, in the Creator domain, perhaps the focus will be on whether the output is sufficiently personal, stylish, or unique.
I tend to think current LLMs are more like tools and enablers. I believe that every area of the world will now experience a boom effect and accelerate exponentially.
When superintelligence arrives—and let's say it isn't sentient but just an expert system—humans will still need to chart the path forward and hopefully control it in such a way that it remains a tool, much like current LLMs.
So yes, education, broad knowledge, and experience are very important. We must teach our children to use this technology responsibly. Because of this acceleration, I don't think the age of AI will require less intelligent people. On the contrary, everything will likely become much more complex and abstract, because every knowledge worker (who wants to participate) will be empowered to do more, build more, and imagine more.
I dont fully get something here. Being a good Engineer is a trait I would seek in a candidate, not really the actual hard skill knowledge.
That is changing every day, and if you are a life long learner, you will master it. I get that domain specific experience matters.
For example I passed the CCIE 10 years ago but today using Aider and LLMs to boost up Network DevOps related developments.
I think using LLMs for code generation is a powerfull use case , is not really cheating, but a new way of working.
Why would an employer not value this, and hiring managers, why are you not testing candidates in open book format on real world issues, giving candidates access to the latest State of the art LLMs, instead of using good old puzzles?
Today in development and Infra engineering space it might make more sense to ask candidates to build something real instead asking for a motivation letter and if they used Sonnet 3.5 v2 that is just a proof for trying to be effective.
