41% of IT Leaders Believe AI Will Take Their Jobs By 2030 (zdnet.com) 110
Dallas, TX-based cloud security firm Trend Micro interviewed 500 IT directors and managers, CIOs and CTOs — and discovered that over two-fifths of them believe they'll be replaced by AI by 2030.
ZDNet reports: Only 9% of respondents were confident that AI would definitely not replace their job within the next decade. In fact, nearly a third (32%) said they thought the technology would eventually work to completely automate all cybersecurity, with little need for human intervention.
Almost one in five (19%) believe that attackers using AI to enhance their arsenal will be commonplace by 2025.
Around a quarter (24%) of IT leaders polled also claimed that by 2030, data access will be tied to biometric or DNA data, making unauthorised access impossible. In the shorter term, respondents also predicted the following outcomes would happen by 2025. They predict that most organisations will have significantly reduced investment in property as remote working becomes the norm (22%)
Nationwide 5G will have entirely transformed network and security infrastructure (21%), and security will be self-managing and automated using AI (15%).
However, attackers using AI to enhance their arsenal will be commonplace (19%)
ZDNet reports: Only 9% of respondents were confident that AI would definitely not replace their job within the next decade. In fact, nearly a third (32%) said they thought the technology would eventually work to completely automate all cybersecurity, with little need for human intervention.
Almost one in five (19%) believe that attackers using AI to enhance their arsenal will be commonplace by 2025.
Around a quarter (24%) of IT leaders polled also claimed that by 2030, data access will be tied to biometric or DNA data, making unauthorised access impossible. In the shorter term, respondents also predicted the following outcomes would happen by 2025. They predict that most organisations will have significantly reduced investment in property as remote working becomes the norm (22%)
Nationwide 5G will have entirely transformed network and security infrastructure (21%), and security will be self-managing and automated using AI (15%).
However, attackers using AI to enhance their arsenal will be commonplace (19%)
Not a moment too soon. (Score:2, Informative)
Re: Not a moment too soon. (Score:2)
Parasites of the arts too. Aka "media industry".
Engineers probably say the same.
Parasites of all that produces creative, inventive works.
Re:Not a moment too soon. (Score:5, Insightful)
For IT workers to be replaced by AI, managers will have to state clearly what they want done. We're safe.
Re: (Score:2)
For IT workers to be replaced by AI, managers will have to state clearly what they want done. We're safe.
While many AIs don’t clearly state things today, surely this will change in 9 years right?
Re:Not a moment too soon. (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly you wouldn't need AI doing fancy things to drastically reduce the need for IT personnel. All you'd need is better quality IT products. There's a lot of wasted work spent dealing with bugs, poor quality hardware and drivers, and terrible design choices. Too many developers and hardware vendors opt to create shoddy gimmicky products that don't work, and then IT has to spend hours and hours trying to make it work.
For example, I remember when iPhones first started making their way into the workplace, and it cut out a bunch of work for my department at the time. Instead of supporting crappy Blackberry and Windows devices, employees suddenly had a smartphone that was pretty reliable and easy for them to use, and didn't require a bunch of IT intervention. (I'm sure that example will be a little controversial, and someone will want to say "Nah, Blackberries were awesome and iPhones are stupid!" but this was my real-life personal experience and not an ideological argument about your feelings about Apple.)
If Microsoft would just fix their products and make them work sensibly, it'd cut out a lot of the things my department needs to work on and figure out.
Now there's also the question of what jobs improvements in IT are likely to eliminate. Better products would reduce the need for some technicians and support people, but I don't expect that products will get less stupid and gimmicky in the next 10 years. I fear they'll get worse. AI may improve monitoring and response, but you'll still need someone to evaluate the AI products, figure out which ones to use, make a business case for buying one, figure out how to implement it, and then keep track of it and troubleshoot areas where it doesn't do what it's supposed to.
And I think it's also worth noting that if you make an AI that can do good security monitoring and response, that may displace some low-level security monitoring employees, but the biggest impact will probably be to enable proper monitoring by companies who don't currently do it, or don't do it well. I think a lot of the AI coming in the next few years will do that sort of thing. It'll provide better security monitoring for companies who don't currently do a good job at security monitoring. It'll tag files with metadata that otherwise would require someone to manually assign, but for companies that wouldn't currently pay someone to sit around tagging files.
So you're right, I don't think IT workers should be concerned about AI replacing their jobs in general. AI may replace human work involved in clear and discrete tasks such as IT monitoring and real-time response, receiving calls and routing them, analyzing trends and generating reports, but in a broader sense I think we're safe. Not just because management is bad at understanding what they want, but because developers are terrible at building things. If Microsoft can't make Windows Update work reliably and without problems, what are the chances that they'll make an AI that can run whole IT departments without people in the loop? AI isn't that smart, and the businesses that are developing the AI aren't very smart either.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You're right that people are often bad at describing their intents to a machine, but I'm not sure that an AI fundamentally requires consciousness to try to interpret and read between the lines. We already have AI models that can somewhat do that, relying heavily on context, similar to how a human might.
Of course, this argument begs a separate question which is: how do we measurably assess consciousness within a given system? It's very likely consciousness is not a binary classification, but a spectrum
Re: (Score:2)
There
Re: (Score:2)
Do you guys do written requirements...Shall statements, etc? We always did this (before I retired), and reviewed them with the customer prior to any actual design work. Maybe the problem is in your process/budget.
Re: (Score:2)
Our customers tend to be non-technical types. They understand their problem well enough to describe "I need to get from point A to somewhere over there". Getting them to agree to any technical specs is pulling teeth, they won't understand anything and they'll just leave. They don't want to tell you how to do anything, they just want it to work, and work well.
And then there's the whole communications issue. Expect 1-
Re: (Score:2)
Engineering doesn't find out about projects until after sales has signed the contracts.
Oh, well you're doing it wrong then. Engineering should be working up requirements, and doing basis of estimate for input to the whole thing.
Our customers tend to be non-technical types.
This is why you do requirements, and preliminary design (show them samples), both of which are reviewed with your customer in order to make sure you're on the right track.
Re: (Score:1)
Same goal as last week: take over the world.
Re: Not a moment too soon. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, the major driving factor we have ffices is because managers are scared of people working from home, where it becomes obvious their inclusion or contributions are completely worthless.
Interesting. So, who handles the budget? Who does the hiring? Who handles disciplinary issues? Who manages the schedule? Who manages customer expectations, and finds new work for his teams when it's done?
Sure, there are shitty managers...plenty of them. But a good manager makes shit happen, and without one, most projects aren't going anywhere. For what it's worth, those are just a tiny portion of the things I did before retiring as an engineering manager (former developer).
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Most? You've clearly worked in the wrong places.
Re: (Score:1)
in other words (Score:5, Interesting)
people who are not smart enough to have a good grasp on what the current AI algos can and cannot do, but ARE smart enough to suspect their job isn't strictly necessary, are giving this away. okay I guess?
The important word there is "current" (Score:2)
Who knows what DeepMind or perhaps some AI startup may come up with in the next few years? Personally I just wish neural net based AI would just crawl away and die as I'm rather pessmistic about the balance of the long term pros vs cons, but my opinions are irrelevant - the speed the field is moving anything is possible in 5 years, never mind 10.
Re: (Score:2)
> Who knows what DeepMind
DeepMind is focusing pretty much on medicine and physics and creating AI that wins Nobels (according to their podcast). Well actually their Alphafold2 AI already did something that would give a Nobel if that was done by a human so we will see how that goes. So they won't be focusing on that specific problem, but they might come up with a productt that as a side effect replaces bosses.
Then again. Doing the job of your average boss isn't exactly hard and it doesn't even require AI.
Re:The important word there is "current" (Score:5, Funny)
while (result) {
if (is_good(result)) {
take_credit();
} else {
transfer_blame();
}
}
seek_new_opportunity();
return huge_bonus;
}
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If only all software was written as readable as this ...
Re: (Score:1)
Doing the job of your average boss isn't exactly hard
It's hard for your boss.
Re: (Score:2)
Doing the job of your average boss isn't exactly hard...
Then, you've never been one, have you? It's very easy for us all to criticize them, and many of them are shitty, and deserving of that. But, until you've walked in those shoes (I've done both before retiring), consider that if it was so easy, why aren't you doing it?
Re: (Score:2)
"DeepMind" is not capable of insight or understanding or "coming up" with things. The only thing "deep" there is the training and that simply means you use a deep network instead of a shallow one that is designed for the task. Makes for worse results but is much cheaper to do.
Re: The important word there is "current" (Score:2)
It doesnt matter if it cant think up anything original, all it has to do is make links and correlations in unexpectedly useful ways. Which tbh is all "creative" types mostly do anyway. Eg, most music is a variation on a theme. Only rarely does someone come up with a new genre from scratch.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesnt matter if it cant think up anything original, all it has to do is make links and correlations in unexpectedly useful ways. Which tbh is all "creative" types mostly do anyway. Eg, most music is a variation on a theme. Only rarely does someone come up with a new genre from scratch.
DeepMind can also not come up with "unexpected" things. It is completely confined to its training. The only thing it can do is trawl large data-sets that no human has looked at yet. And what you can find in there is limited.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong. I'm not s
Re: (Score:2)
people who are not smart enough to have a good grasp on what the current AI algos can and cannot do, but ARE smart enough to suspect their job isn't strictly necessary, are giving this away. okay I guess?
If we think the person who helps guide and direct a company utilizing considerable experience to deploy the best technical solutions to meet business objectives can be replaced with AI, then we should have been able to replace every CFO with Excel an a tax accountant two decades ago. Not trying to say every IT job is justified, but there are certainly many reasons IT remains viable.
And I'm guessing AI will be adopted about as quickly as IPv6 has, especially with politicians and society continuing to define
Re: (Score:2)
If we think the person who helps guide and direct a company utilizing considerable experience to deploy the best technical solutions to meet business objectives can be replaced with AI, then we should have been able to replace every CFO with Excel an a tax accountant two decades ago. Not trying to say every IT job is justified, but there are certainly many reasons IT remains viable.
Oh... are you one of those who believe that a company is that role called CEO?
No, because quite often enough a CEO doesn't have a damn clue as to technical solutions, and doesn't need to. They're a bit busy managing the entire business. It's also why they hire subject matter experts in technology. If you pretend to be a jack of all trades these days, you'll most likely end up looking like a jackass of all trades.
Do you believe that any employee at the C-level of most major companies does even know anything else about the company, that pays their two/three digits times the lowest salary in the company and outargeous bonus, besides powerpoints with pictures and graphs about superficial things and some balance sheet that is just numbers for them?
No doubt there are plenty of middle management that is excessive in business. Doesn't mean you don't need leaders to make business decisions. And it doesn't really matter
Re:in other words (Score:4, Interesting)
people who are not smart enough to have a good grasp on what the current AI algos can and cannot do, but ARE smart enough to suspect their job isn't strictly necessary, are giving this away. okay I guess?
But what does it mean for us? Does it mean they'll be stealing and cheating like crazy for the next 9 years to prepare for their "redundancy"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have witnessed something similar, and in my opinion that is a product of the MBA approach to business administration - people you describe as "hoards of IT department managers" are the ones who LOOK like they add value from the angle of those who call the shots, so they get hired and promoted to those positions. well, reality is, one cannot be MORE interested in the company making money than the company's stakeholders, so unless it's your company you're not going to be in a position to change this on a sy
Trump AI trained on his Twitter (Score:2)
Sure, you cou can troll it, but it's better to have your false beliefs reinforced by it. It will encourage you to never give up the fight against some imagined fraud. And it's a fight for your country because the other side will destroy it. They are out to destroy your way of life. That's what is at stake here so get over there and fight. Trump AI loves you. You're special.
Brilliant (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Brilliant (Score:2)
Of course they couldn't. :D
They'd be out of a job!
Re: (Score:2)
Ask the parasites who have the least knowledge about technical matters, and couldnt write a hello world basic program
Funny how it's the manager's fault the programmer writes such shitty code they don't sanitize their inputs [xkcd.com] or reuse code from almost 20 years ago which they were told has a bug in it which will allow access to a machine if it's not written a certain way [slashdot.org] or server people leave the default login and password set. [slashdot.org]
Apparently managers have to micromanage every step of the process because programmers and others are too stupid to do their jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Managers get to decide who fills these position. Going for the cheapest cretins makes the managers responsible for the crappy results.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends what the manager is trying to have as a product. To use the car example, are they selling Porsches, or Yugos? You hire the people you need to get the job done, and if your customer is expecting low price, they can probably expect low quality as well.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"by definition no skills"? Please point to any reference that says that? All you've done here is show that you have no clue what it takes to be a good manager, and have probably had some shitty ones. I've been on both sides, and you have no fucking idea what management is like.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
For a software development business, a core requirement skill is programming. Do i really have to point out that most managers cant program ?
Maybe that's what you meant, but it's not what you said.
Managers on the other hand by definition have no skills, they take credit and blame others for failures, they themselves contrbute nothing to the end product in anyway.
You don't seem to realize that the product isn't only created by programming. Managers have skills that are (indirectly) necessary to create that end product. Good luck producing something of significance w/o management.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Ask the parasites who have the least knowledge about technical matters
Congress??
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If you follow your plan daily, the AI will notice that you are not getting any work done and maintenance costs have been increasing because of you and you are automatically fired.
Wildly optimistic (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Human level AI in nine years? Where's your perspective? It won't happen until 2035.
Since we currently do not even have a dim glimmer of intelligence in machines and no credible theory how it could be implemented (no "simulate the human brain" is not a "credible theory", it is BS because we have no idea how the human brain works and whether it actually creates intelligence), it may well be "never".
But the real problem is that dumb automation _can_ replace a lot of humans that are incapable or unwilling to apply the intelligence they actually have competently or at all. Just look at flat-ea
Proof (Score:2)
I always knew that most CIOs and CTOs were out of touch, and actually don't know all that much about technology. Here, we have the proof.
Re: (Score:2)
I always knew that most CIOs and CTOs were out of touch, and actually don't know all that much about technology. Here, we have the proof.
It is different for CTOs in small teams. There you often get actual engineers as CTOs. Large teams/companies: CTO is an administrative position filled by somebody clueless.(Caveat: I used to be a small-company CTO.)
As Soon is it Hits Home (Score:2)
24% of IT leaders polled are complete idiots (Score:1, Insightful)
Those people don't deserve to be IT leaders. How many times will it take before these people realize that every biometric authentication system can be tricked. Silicone fingerprints were just the beginning. Silicone fingerprints with fake blood vessels? Done. Attackers with impersonation masks? Done. I guess the next big thing will be busts with i
Re: (Score:2)
> every biometric authentication system can be tricked.
If you call someone and ask their password correctly, 90% of people will tell it to you, But the thing is, when we hire people, we don't usually test if they belong to the 10% or 90% group.
Re: (Score:2)
How many times will it take before these people realize that every biometric authentication system can be tricked.
By tricked, I assume you mean "false accept" and that's just not true. However, most people prefer the system not lock out valid users (false reject) so they tune the variables to make that the usual case - which allows some false accepts to happen.
Ridiculous example to prove point: I glue a USB cable to a brick and call it a fingerprint reader. It doesn't actually read anything, so it has a perfect 0% false accept rate. It also has a horrible true accept rate (also 0%) but no one can trick it.
Data access impossible? (Score:2)
"Around a quarter (24%) of IT leaders polled also claimed that by 2030, data access will be tied to biometric or DNA data, making unauthorised access impossible."
Really? Clearly these IT leaders aren't up to much if they believe this will stop unauthorised access. This assumes the *only* point of entry to a system would be via biometric/DNA data and that it will be impossible to bypass this point of entry. An assumption there are zero weak points *anywhere* in a distributed network. No software bugs, no thi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Biometrics are an identifier, not an authenticator.
Re: (Score:2)
Biometrics are an identifier, not an authenticator.
Indeed. Far too many people do not understand that. Identity is a claim. Authentication is proving such a claim, which has to be made before.
The only "authentication" value biometrics have is because they are not completely trivial to fake. That is basically nothing and any competent security person will not regard biometrics as having any real authentication value.
Re: (Score:2)
Biometrics are stupid anyway, because they are easily stolen. Once stolen, the credentials are out there forever, since the legitimate owner cannot change them.
Yes, this happens in most SciFi movies right after the shit hits the fan. No way in hell am I ever using a rental scan for security, it never stops the bad guys and I know how that ends up.
"IT Leaders" (Score:1)
Any "IT Leader" who thinks they're going to be replaced by an AI should resign now and go into gardening. That way any of us actually working in IT with an understanding of what AI really is don't have to deal with them.
Thank you for bringing up a Trend Micro "article" that says in 2021 "cyber"-criminals will use home networks as springboard. WOW, what a revelation. Does Trend Micro sell "cyber"-security? Why YES, YES THEY DO!
I predict in 2021 Trend Micro will continue its many-year fade into "cyber"-o
Re: (Score:2)
Very much so. Removing these people will boost productively massively, because they cannot stand in the way anymore and destroy value.
Probably, it will (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Management, maybe. Consulting (at least the real type were you care about results, not just having a "big name" on it), not a chance. The main task in consulting is to find out what the customer wants and what the customer needs and then to find a compromise that works. Quite a bit like high-end prostitution, where you find exceptionally smart women (and some men).
The next step? (Score:2)
AI will replace humans (Score:1)
Clearly not actual IT people. (Score:2)
Otherwise they'd not be so utterly clueless to speak of "AI" as if it was more than just a mass media word for oversimplified universal pattern mapping functions. They'd know that there is no such thing as artificial intelligence.
So clearly these are the 41 percent that have suspiciousy pointy hair and love Apple. And can already be replaced with a very small shell script.
I thought IT was already dead? (Score:1)
We are safe (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"To replace programmers with robots, clients will have to describe what they want. We are safe."
Most programmers are not save. The 10% top people (who are actually engineers, not technicians as the term "programmer" would imply) will be even more in demand. But the rest will be recognized as redundant with very bad personal productivity, which easily can be and often is negative via massive maintenance costs for the crap they produce.
Luddites in comments here (Score:1)
It's not so much about "AI" or "ML" it's about repetitive work. Automatisation is coming and no one will be spared unless for some reason the people behind automatisation were to suddenly lose their intelligence, by which the whole world would stop advancing.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not so much about "AI" or "ML" it's about repetitive work. Automatisation is coming and no one will be spared unless for some reason the people behind automatisation were to suddenly lose their intelligence, by which the whole world would stop advancing.
The lack of foresight or wisdom, has little to do with those bringing forth automation to replace human workers.
The lack of foresight or wisdom, has everything to do with utterly failing to prepare an entire society as to how to address the problem of humans not working.
There is a large difference between being unemployed, and being unemployable. Greed is too busy doing what it does best to give a shit about the difference or impact, which is rather pathetic since Greed survives and thrives off consumer d
Re: (Score:2)
Well said. But greed, like fear, is a mind-killer. Those affected by it (usually because of lack of personal development) do not understand what they are doing and usually harm not only others but themselves as well. Look at your run-of-the-mill financial scam (classical Ponzi, pump&dump, also thinly veiled as Bit-"coin", etc.): It is very rare for people to actually profit there, yet a certain kind kind of person always flocks to these things, believing they are smarter than everybody else.
Incidentally
Re: (Score:1)
Do you really think those with a lot of money currently have empathy? Do you really think they care if everyone lost their jobs? Do you really think that they live by the products that the poor consume? It's not about anything else but control, and a population with no goals or a future is easy to control. Please, indulge me further in your naivety.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think those with a lot of money currently have empathy?
No.
Do you really think they care if everyone lost their jobs?
Quite a few related to many, many services, yes. They rely on providers and manufacturers far more than you assume to sustain their obscene lives.
Do you really think that they live by the products that the poor consume?
No, they live by the products the other 99% of humanity designs, produces, creates, provides, and sustains. Not sure why you assume the worlds elite sustain themselves.
It's not about anything else but control, and a population with no goals or a future is easy to control. Please, indulge me further in your naivety.
The larger their riches become, the farther they remove themselves from reality. Soon, even the 0.1% of society will be meaningless. The higher you attempt to dismiss and ultimately enslave th
Re: (Score:2)
It's not so much about "AI" or "ML" it's about repetitive work. Automatisation is coming and no one will be spared unless for some reason the people behind automatisation were to suddenly lose their intelligence, by which the whole world would stop advancing.
I mostly agree with this. A lot of jobs do not require actual intelligence to do or you can automated 9/10 people doing it away and keep one person for the parts that do require intelligence. But actually there is a class of people that will not only be "spared", but may well become much more in demand: People that need to understand things in order to do their work. For example, architecture and design, evaluation, audit and real engineering (i.e. not just "technicians" combining components). It is, for ex
AI based on bad data collection will fail (Score:4, Interesting)
At least every other team or one-on-one meeting I have with my colleagues and manager I spend pointing out obvious problems with the data they want entered into our project management system. The usual end result is doubling down on the bad data collection, which makes the problems worse and the data even less useful. It's like somehow expanding on bad data collection is supposed to be an improvement.
I don't really know how they plan to train an AI when much of the existing data used by managers is somewhere between complete hot garbage and utterly misleading and totally magnified by ridiculous aggregation and rollups in reporting and "dashboards". They call blinking red boxes "idiot lights" in cars because of their low quality diagnostic information, why doesn't a manager who relies on them without trying to understand the situation realize they're idiots?
One of our recurring issues is projects which overrun estimated hours and/or completion date estimates. I've been begging for work codes or tickets to classify time wasted waiting on clients -- missed meetings, external remediation, sluggish responses, etc. You get dinged if you don't log this time but then you get dinged when the hours are over because there's no where else to put the time except in tickets or job codes meant to log productive work.
Yet we keep having this conversation. I've even asked if we could just stop talking about it because management just refuses to collect the data that might enhance their ability to understand it. I think they just don't want to collect it because it will reflect on how disengaged and uninterested in actually managing.
In fact, I'm sort of certain that most managers start out enthusiastic about managing but quickly become frustrated with the scale of the task and their own upstream management frustrations and eventually give up, papering over problems with minimal effort and then pursuing their own pet initiatives instead.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to focus too much on rational logic and not enough on office politics. Decisions are made based on office politics, where each player sees a different aspect of things and is ignorant of other topics. Each is gaming off the others' ignorance to gain advantage in the eyes of their ignorant bosses. You see, humans are screwy. They should teach office politics at universities. Maybe include some Dilbert reading assignments.
Re: (Score:2)
I completely see the politics in not wanting to fix the data collection, it would show how shoddy the projects manager is in terms of managing. The thing is, I don't get the calculus involved in not fixing the time measurement data collection because the existing system hurts the manager, too, due to frequent overruns, projects which run for months beyond their predicted time, and so on, which have no objective explanation.
Measuring that time literally is a political improvement for the manager because roug
They'll have to learn to code (Score:1)
Well, This article is your answer to why.
It won't be AI taking their jobs (Score:2)
I doubt "AI" will take the vast majority of IT jobs. The more likely candidate is the cloud providers all these IT leaders are jumping into bed with. Combine new entrants not learning anything about how basic compute/network/storage function outside of the cloud, with vendors pushing SaaS. PaaS and serverless. That's a recipe for becoming totally helpless without your cloud provider. I predict that most "IT departments" will end up just calling in support tickets if nobody can be bothered to learn how thing
So 41% are worthless or clueless? (Score:2)
Because that are the cases where "AI" a.k.a. "Artificial Stupidity" will "take their jobs". Would not really surprise me, quite a few "leaders" are doing a worse job than dumb automation.
Transitional occupation? (Score:2)
When I was a kid, there was no "IT Leader" for the most part. There were paper files, and clerks, and people who managed all that and it was probably a lot more people than now. I'm sure some of those people transitioned into IT, but most probably just retired. So they were replaced by IT with an "IT leader" at the helm and somebody will replace them. It's just how things go. They're file clerks. The clerk is already electronic. The "data entry person" is the customer! I used to do data entry and it
Cloud services, not "AI" (Score:2)
There's not need to bring AI into this. Corporations are FLYING to cloud infrastructure, where servers are managed automatically. They are also subscribing to cloud backup services like OneDrive, Google Drive, etc., eliminating a lot of IT drudge work. AI has nothing to do with it, it's just that cloud services have gotten good enough that corporations feel they can trust them to keep their data secure. This means that they no longer have to manage racks and racks of self-hosted equipment, they just have a
HA! (Score:2)
90`s call back... (Score:2)
4th Gen "programming languages" was supposed to kill programmer's job because anyone was supposed to be able to use a mouse to create boxes and add lines between them to create applications... ;)
My opinion (Score:1)