Hear it from #BigTech itself:

[alicestollmeyer@eupolicy.social]

Hear it from #BigTech itself:

Using #AI is more expensive than paying human employees.

https://fortune.com/2026/05/22/microsoft-ai-cost-problem-tokens-agents/

[bms48@mastodon.social]

@AliceStollmeyer Not the 9 o'clock News: https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.09089

[failedlyndonlarouchite@mas.to]

@AliceStollmeyer

I read about half of the article and so far it does not support your post

[prefec2@norden.social]

@AliceStollmeyer I've read the whole article. It sounds like an AI generated it or a very distracted or overworked journalist. There is no straight line of argumentation to support the claim from the title. The text sounds like Microsoft is turning to another product to save money. Other sections dwell on token prices and their use. While the text hints in the direction that AI might be more expensive than a human. It is not a water tight argument.

(I am not saying the title is wrong)

[villasbc@mastodon.social]

@prefec2 @AliceStollmeyer I’d even say that the little line of argumentation is plainly wrong. Microsoft telling engineers to switch from Claude Code to Copilot shouldn’t even count as scaling back AI. Copilot is an AI product…

And Uber saying that they burned through their 2026 budget before mid year also doesn’t mean that they’re scaling back, the opposite really.

[prefec2@norden.social]

@villasbc @AliceStollmeyer exactly. You could read that between the lines, this is so vague. I know the person coming up with titles is often not the person writing the article. So they might not match perfectly, but here, the article has no coherent argumentation in the wider area of the title.