Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change

papers.ssrn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 197 posts

Re: Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change

#11

Post by thw_9a83c »

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #7
zeuch wrote: post #2

New Harvard's study (62M workers, 285k firms) shows firms adopting generative AI cut junior hiring sharply while continuing to grow senior roles — eroding the bottom rungs of career ladders and reshaping how careers start.

In 10 years where do the senior dev's come from? Real question. Seems like with lower entry level jobs now, in 10 years there won't be seniors to hire.

I suppose the idea is that those junior developers who weren't hired will spend 10 years doing intensive, unpaid self-study so that they can knock on the door as experienced seniors by that time.

Re: Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change

#12

Post by softwaredoug »

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #7
zeuch wrote: post #2

New Harvard's study (62M workers, 285k firms) shows firms adopting generative AI cut junior hiring sharply while continuing to grow senior roles — eroding the bottom rungs of career ladders and reshaping how careers start.

In 10 years where do the senior dev's come from? Real question. Seems like with lower entry level jobs now, in 10 years there won't be seniors to hire.

Junior devs eventually will have been brought up with agentic coding, etc. Hopefully whatever the "new way" becomes is how they'll be taught.

Currently part of the problem is the taboo using AI coding in undergrad CS programs. And I don't know the answer. But someone will find the right way to teach new/better ways of working with and without generative AI. It may just become second nature to everyone.

Re: Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change

#13

Post by trzy »

zeuch wrote: post #5
red-iron-pine wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

presumably this also means the relative value of seniors is now increasing, as the pipeline to replace them is smaller. its like how the generic "we take anyone" online security degree has poisoned that market -- nothing but hoards of entry level goobers, but no real heavy hitters on the mid-to-high end. put another way, the market is tight but there are still reasonable options for seniors. then again we live under…

Agree, increased value and demand for seniors. But how will the market solve the generation of new seniors if juniors are getting less opportunities? Take the software development sector as example: if we replace junior devs by AI coding agents and put senior devs to review the agent's work, how will we produce more seniors (with wide experience in the sector) if the juniors are not coding anymore?

Who cares? This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to finally gatekeep software engineering the way lawyers and finance professionals do with their fields! Enjoy the windfall in 5 years!

Re: Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change

#14

Post by gota »

zeuch wrote: post #3

If entry-level roles are shrinking, how should companies rethink talent development? Without the traditional “bottom rungs,” how do we grow future seniors if fewer juniors ever get the chance to start?

I think open source contributions/projects will still be a way to gain verifiable experience.

Other than that, I guess developing software in some capacity while doing a non-strictly software job - say, in accounting, marketing, healtcare, etc. This might not be a relevant number of people if 'vibe coding' takes hold and the fundamentals are not learned/ignored by these accountants, marketers, healthcare workers, etc.

If that is the case, we'd have a lot of 'informed beginners' with 10+ years of experience tangentially related to software.

Edit: As a result of the above, we might see an un-ironic return to the 'learn to code' mantra in the following years. Perhaps now qualified 'learn to -actually- code'? I'd wager a dollar on that discourse popping up in ~5 years time if the trend of not hiring junior devs continues.

Re: Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change

#15

Post by RodgerTheGreat »

zeuch wrote: post #3

If entry-level roles are shrinking, how should companies rethink talent development? Without the traditional “bottom rungs,” how do we grow future seniors if fewer juniors ever get the chance to start?

That's much longer than a quarterly earnings report away, which makes it "somebody else's problem" for the executives pushing these policies. There's no reason to expect these people to have a long-term strategy in mind as long as their short-term strategy gives them a golden parachute.

Re: Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change

#16

Post by Workaccount2 »

softwaredoug wrote: post #12
FrustratedMonky wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 10 years where do the senior dev's come from? Real question. Seems like with lower entry level jobs now, in 10 years there won't be seniors to hire.

Junior devs eventually will have been brought up with agentic coding, etc. Hopefully whatever the "new way" becomes is how they'll be taught. Currently part of the problem is the taboo using AI coding in undergrad CS programs. And I don't know the answer. But someone will find the right way to teach new/better ways of working with and without generative AI. It may just become second nature to everyone.

Kids are always the best with technology. The generation in high school right now will be god tier at getting results from LLMs.

Re: Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change

#17

Post by thw_9a83c »

softwaredoug wrote: post #12
FrustratedMonky wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 10 years where do the senior dev's come from? Real question. Seems like with lower entry level jobs now, in 10 years there won't be seniors to hire.

Junior devs eventually will have been brought up with agentic coding, etc. Hopefully whatever the "new way" becomes is how they'll be taught. Currently part of the problem is the taboo using AI coding in undergrad CS programs. And I don't know the answer. But someone will find the right way to teach new/better ways of working with and without generative AI. It may just become second nature to everyone.

While agentic coding can make you productive, it won't teach you to deeply understand the source code, algorithms, or APIs produced by AI. If you can't thoroughly audit any source code created by an AI agent, then you are definitely not a senior developer.

Re: Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change

#18

Post by lukev »

It's pretty clear this is happening.

The question is... is this based on existing capability of LLMs to do these jobs? Or are companies doing this on the expectation that AI is advanced enough to pick up the slack?

I have observed a disconnect in which management is typically far more optimistic about AI being capable of performing a specific task than are the workers who currently perform that task.

And to what extent is AI-related job cutting just an excuse for what management would want to do anyway?

Re: Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change

#19

Post by throwawaysleep »

zeuch wrote: post #3

If entry-level roles are shrinking, how should companies rethink talent development? Without the traditional “bottom rungs,” how do we grow future seniors if fewer juniors ever get the chance to start?

That’s a problem years away, so… don’t think about it?

Re: Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change

#20

Post by smokedetector1 »

Interesting. However just because this is true right now doesn't mean it will be true going forward. Unique to the current moment is that there are simultaneously (1) high interest rates and a challenging economy (2) a narrative that AI adoption should enable cutting junior roles. This could lead to companies that would anyway be doing layoffs choosing to lay off or not hire juniors, and replace with AI adoption.

To really test the implied theory that using AI enables cutting junior hiring, we need to see it in a better economy, in otherwise growing companies, or with some kind of control (though not sure how this would really be possible).

Post reply on HN