Thread regarding Wells Fargo & Co. layoffs

@bj It's because copilot is one of the worst and it signals exactly how invested WF is in advancing their AI initiative (not much).

JPM is going to end up crushing WF as they are WAY ahead in the AI game, just like everything else.

AI is already smarter than 80% of the workforce at Wells Fargo. For managers, it's closer to 95%.

Managers should be worried.

I have found nothing useful for Copilot except automating some spreadsheet tasks.

@az No, because WF is so d-mb with AI all you get is copilot, and you can't really expect to go far with just a chat bot that isn't connected to any useful tools.

You can get fairly far with prompts if it's repeatable work with clean data (if needed), but to truly automate you need better tools for agentic workflows (LangChain, n8n, Claude Code, Lindy, etc).

Different tools have different levels of sophistication. LangChain and Claude Code, for example, are probably better suited for Coding DevOps type automation, whereas something like n8n or Lindy are a bit more user friendly.

Wells Fargo is really technologically inept (I mean they put TK at the head of it, so that explains a lot right there). Tech companies are much farther along in their automation and AI use. But, consider it a preview of what is coming for everyone.

Has anyone had any luck integrating Copilot into their workflow for all but the most low level stuff? By the time I have to build out the prompts I could have done the work. But, the execs think they can layoff people because of AI. I’ll be interested to see what happens when there’s a problem and all the knowledgeable people got laid off. Wait till they tell us to use AI as support. Lol

ngl, just asked Michael Burry and things aren't looking good

Most most easily replaced job at WF, by AI, is the CEO.

@a6 It's both. They see what's happening in Silicon Valley and put the odds of it automating jobs away higher than it was before. Pressures from tariffs and other forces putting downward pressure on companies is also true.

All one has to do is look at factories to understand that if there is the opportunity to replace people with machines, they will replace people with machines. History has shown us this time and time again. The problem is that it's just not quite good enough for that...yet. But, factory automation took time to perfect too.

If you do a bit of searching around, you'll find plenty of commentary from business leaders spanning most industries who are basically chomping at the bit to automate work with AI.

I'm not saying this is the only factor driving layoff decisions, but it absolutely is part of their calculus.

Lastly, I didn't use AI to write anything here. My spelling and grammatical errors should make this obvious. It's a layoff site; I'm not worried about polished prose here.

OP went mask-off with the "Frankly, if you aren't using AI to be more efficient, you're falling behind" comment lol. Maybe he didn't fine tune his prompts to spew out something less disingenuous (or that he even grasps).

@a5 No, that's not what you said. There's a big difference between the executives laying people off because they think they can be replaced with AI and executives laying people off for cost cutting in a terrible economy where they're struggling to grow revenue and appealing to the AI hype. Meanwhile those roles aren't actually being replaced by the chatbots, and they know it. It's just robbing Peter to pay Paul, same as what's happening at WF.

If it's "giving them the excuse" it's not really the driver of the layoffs. Do you not understand the distinction?

@a3 OP here. Isn't that basically what I said? If nothing else, it's giving them the excuse.

With that said... Frankly, if you aren't using AI to be more efficient, you're falling behind. It's definitely not something that's ready for primetime mass job replacement, but it can make you faster, which it sounds like you're opting out. Not good.

The tariffs, general political chaos, and fudged/hidden economic data are what's doing it.

No, AI is a convenient excuse to make cost cutting layoffs seem forward thinking and efficient. That's not "leading" to job loss.