Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: AI productivity gains – do you fire devs or build better products?

news.ycombinator.com

51–60 of 244 posts

Re: Ask HN: AI productivity gains – do you fire devs or build better products?

#53
AI tooling does not provide productivity gains unless you consider it productive to skip the boilerplate portion of software development, which you can already do by using a framework, or you never plan to get past the MVP stage of a product, as refactoring the AI spaghetti would take several magnitudes more work than doing it with humans from the beginning.

Amazon has demonstrated that it takes just as longer, or longer, to have senior devs review LLM output than it would to just have the senior devs do the programming in the first place. But now your senior devs are wasted on reviewing instead of developing or engineering. Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Salesforce, and Palantir have all suffered multiple losses in the tens of millions (or more) due to AI output issues. Now that Microsoft has finally realized how bad LLMs really are at generating useful output, they've begun removing AI functionality from Windows.

Product quality matters more than time to market. Especially in tech, the first-to-market is almost never the company that dominates, so it's truly bizarre that VCs are always so focused on their investments trying to be first to market instead of best to market.

If Competitor Y just fired 90% of their developers, I would have a toast with my entire human team. And a few months later, we'd own the market with our superior product.

Re: Ask HN: AI productivity gains – do you fire devs or build better products?

#54

> boilerplate Ruby on Rails and its imitators blew away tons of boilerplate. Despite some hype at the time about a productivity revolution, it didn’t _really_ change that much. > , libraries, build-tools, Ensure what you mean by this; what bearing do our friends the magic robots have on these? > and refactoring Again, IntelliJ did not really cause a productivity revolution by making refactoring trivial about 20 years…

couldn't have said it better. all of the people clamoring on about eliminating the boilerplate they've been writing + enabling refactoring have had their heads in the sand for the past two decades. so yeah, i'm sure it does seem revolutionary to them!

Re: Ask HN: AI productivity gains – do you fire devs or build better products?

#55

> boilerplate Ruby on Rails and its imitators blew away tons of boilerplate. Despite some hype at the time about a productivity revolution, it didn’t _really_ change that much. > , libraries, build-tools, Ensure what you mean by this; what bearing do our friends the magic robots have on these? > and refactoring Again, IntelliJ did not really cause a productivity revolution by making refactoring trivial about 20 years…

And for a lot of AI transformation tasks, for a long time I've been using even clever regex search/replace, and with a few minutes of small adjustment afterward I have a 100% deterministic (or 95% deterministic and 5% manually human reviewed and edited) process for transforming code. Although of course I haven't tried that cross-language, etc.

And of course, we didn't see a massive layoff after the introduction of say, StackOverflow, or DreamWeaver, or jQuery vs raw JS, Twitter Bootstrap, etc.

Re: Ask HN: AI productivity gains – do you fire devs or build better products?

#56
post #17

In certain industries, increasing productivity by 90% does not mean 90% increase in profit. This is because growth depends on market TAM and growth rate. Another way of increasing profit is to simply reduce your headcount by 90% while keeping the same profit.* Hence, I think some companies will keep downsizing. Some companies will hire. It depends a lot. *Assuming 90% productivity increase.

In companies like the oil industry, doubling productivity would mean reducing the expected life span. Costs tend to catch up with profits, especially due to taxes. Layoffs happen inevitably. Is it the same with tech? Facebook has 3 billion monthly active users. No amount of tech will bring that up to 6 billion. If you were to double the amount of time someone spends on Facebook, or double the ads they see or double t…

Yeah, even if Meta engineers gain 90% increase in productivity, I doubt Meta can increase revenue by 90% more than previous environment. There’s just a cap to how much time people want to spend on social media.

I think most companies are making the right call by downsizing instead of staying same size. Let people go to where there is more potential for growth.

Re: Ask HN: AI productivity gains – do you fire devs or build better products?

#57
Assuming you are primarily selling software.

Situation a/ llm increase developer's productivity: you hire more developers as you cash profit. If you don't your competitor will.

b/ llm doesn't increase productivity, you keep cruising. You rejoice seeing some competitors lay off.

Reality shows dissonance with these only possible scenarios. Absurd decision making, a mistake? No mistake. Many tech companies are facing difficulties, they need to lose weight to remain profitable, and appease the shareholders demand for bigger margins.

How to do this without a backlash? Ai is replacing developers, Anthropic's CEO said engineers don't write code anymore, role obsolete in 6 months. It naturally makes sense we have to let some of them go. If the prophecy doesn't turn true, nobody ever get fired for buying IBM.

Re: Ask HN: AI productivity gains – do you fire devs or build better products?

#58
You still need humans to manage the whole lifecycle, including monitoring the live site, being on-call, handling incidents, triaging bugs, deploying fixes, supporting users and so on.

For greenfield development you don't need as many software engineers. Some developers (the top 10%) are still needed to guide AI and make architectural decisions, but the remaining 90% will work on the lifecycle management task mentioned above.

The productivity gains can be used to produce more software, and if you are able to sell the software you produce should result in a revenue boost. But if you produce more than you can sell then some people will be laid off.

Re: Ask HN: AI productivity gains – do you fire devs or build better products?

#60
I think most public companies will take the short term profits and startups will be given a huge opportunity to take market share as a result.

At my company, we are maintaining our hiring plan (I'm the decision maker). We have never been more excited at our permission to win against the incumbents in our market. At the same time, I've never been more concerned about other startups giving us a real run. I think we will see a bit of an arms race for the best talent as a result.

Productivity without clear vision, strategy and user feedback loops is meaningless. But those startups that are able to harness the productivity gains to deliver more complete and polished solutions that solve real problems for their users will be unstoppable.

We've always seen big gains by taking a team of say 8 and splitting it into 2 teams of 4. I think the major difference is that now we will probably split teams of 4 into 2 teams of 2 with clearer remits. I don't want them to necessarily delivery more features. But I do want them to deliver features with far fewer caveats at a higher quality and then iterate more on those.

Humans that consume the software will become the bottlenecks of change!

Post reply on HN