Yeah, but... this isn't that.

You're literally saying "well, anecdotal impressions say this, so I refute this study that says something else".

We don't like that. That's not a thing we like to do.

And for the record, as these things go, the article linked here is pretty good. I've seen more than one worse example of a study being reported in the press today.

They provide a neutral headline that conveys the takeaway of the study, they provide context about companies mentioning AIs on layoffs, they provide a link to the full study and they provide a separate study that yields different results.

I mean, this is as close to best case scenario for reporting on a study as you can get in mainstream press. If nothing else, kudos to The Register, the bar is low but they went for personal best anyway.

Man, the problem with giving up all the wonky fashy social media is that when you're in an echo chamber all the weird misinformation and emotion-driven politics are coming from inside the house. It's been a particularly rough day for politically-adjacent but epistemologically depressing posts today.