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

The Companies Cutting Headcount for AI Will Lose to the Ones Who Didn't

libertas.software

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 218 posts

Re: The Companies Cutting Headcount for AI Will Lose to the Ones Who Didn't

#141

Post by pjmlp »

noodletheworld wrote: post #114
pjmlp wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In consulting firing people “on the bench” happens regularly if the sales pipeline cannot keep everyone busy, there is only so much agencies pay from their own pocket if there are no outsourcing deals landing. In some of those well known offshoring companies, being on bench automatically means a downcut on the salary as cost measure.

> if the sales pipeline cannot keep everyone busy That has nothing to do with AI. It is happening due to global economic conditions. Im not saying the bench doesn't exist, Im saying its not full of people because you have two consultants doing all 59 jobs with AI. There are definitely places making cuts of staff who are not on the bench.

You have a team of two consultants, for what used to be a team of five, kind of.

No need to take the 69 out of a magic hat.

The other three join the on bench pool.

When economy gets worse, the lucky two are the ones staying.

Re: The Companies Cutting Headcount for AI Will Lose to the Ones Who Didn't

#142

Post by burnte »

elktown wrote: post #59

I think the unfortunate reality is that lots of companies in our industry have suspiciously inflated employee counts in the first place. Even when removing AI and the pandemic over-hiring, I wouldn't have been surprised to see corrections sooner or later. Employee count seems to correlate to stock market incentives - which is how GitLab is like 5x larger than Valve.

There are companies of a certain size that hold on to thousands of people they don't really need just so they can but them at a moment's notice to appease the stock market if bad news hits. It keeps talent out of their competitors, and gives them a cheat code if earnings dip or bad news hits.

Re: The Companies Cutting Headcount for AI Will Lose to the Ones Who Didn't

#143

Post by stephc_int13 »

elktown wrote: post #59

I think the unfortunate reality is that lots of companies in our industry have suspiciously inflated employee counts in the first place. Even when removing AI and the pandemic over-hiring, I wouldn't have been surprised to see corrections sooner or later. Employee count seems to correlate to stock market incentives - which is how GitLab is like 5x larger than Valve.

I agree with both the gist of the article and your comment.

In the case of the well known FAANG and other similarly structured large software companies, everyone working there or having approached them know how bloated and inefficient they are.

What is happening is likely a long-term plan to completely restructure themselves, progressively shedding headcount while using it as a disciplinary tactic.

I am sure they understand the cost and the effect on morale.

But they are foreseeing radical changes and they want to be ready and slim before the storm.

Re: The Companies Cutting Headcount for AI Will Lose to the Ones Who Didn't

#144

Post by pjmlp »

WarmWash wrote: post #104
disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the unfortunate reality is that lots of companies in our industry have suspiciously inflated employee counts in the first place. Even when removing AI and the pandemic over-hiring, I wouldn't have been surprised to see corrections sooner or later. It's funny to me that everyone talks about pandemic over-hiring, as if this hadn't been a thing for a decade before that. Like, when I started at FB in 2013, they…

AI aside, if we just look at other engineering disciplines in mature sectors, the future is not bright(er). No fully paid golden cadillac benefits packages (for your dog too!), no twice daily uber eats comps, no $150k entry level, no unlimited PTO, no 6 months leave. If you go to your uncles engineering department at the boiler company, these guy's engineering roles are about as pampered as the warehouse managers. Th…

That is a SV thing, in many places it is a regular office job.

You are already in a treat if having free coffee and fruit.

Re: The Companies Cutting Headcount for AI Will Lose to the Ones Who Didn't

#145

Post by ulfw »

LOL who doesn't?

I don't know anyone who has been hiring in any kind of significant numbers. Everyone fires either because of alleged AI efficiencies or to pay for AI token shit or to just bla bla to investors how magically AI AI AI they are.

End result all the same. Massive job losses due to AI.

Re: The Companies Cutting Headcount for AI Will Lose to the Ones Who Didn't

#146

Post by tsycho »

elktown wrote: post #59

I think the unfortunate reality is that lots of companies in our industry have suspiciously inflated employee counts in the first place. Even when removing AI and the pandemic over-hiring, I wouldn't have been surprised to see corrections sooner or later. Employee count seems to correlate to stock market incentives - which is how GitLab is like 5x larger than Valve.

I keep seeing this over hiring argument everywhere. What's the evidence for that?

And weren't the layoffs of 2023-24 supposed to correct that?

In my experience, in every big tech company for the past two decades, almost everyone always complained that they were understaffed to meet their goals/okrs.

IMO, the real explanation is:

- Some unprofitable companies don't want to raise money in a high interest rate world, and are using AI as a partial excuse, partial ambition to do layoffs to cut costs. Eg: NET

- Other companies are investing heavily into data centers (eg: META) and need to cut costs elsewhere to offset that.

And in both cases, there's some real productivity gains that they have already seen due to AI that will offset, plus they expect to see more gains as the remaining people will work harder and be more motivated to increase their productivity for job security.

Re: The Companies Cutting Headcount for AI Will Lose to the Ones Who Didn't

#147

Post by prewett »

redwall_hp wrote: post #94
pjmlp wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In consulting you don't make magically customers out of nowhere, and there is a limited pool of customers to feed from.

Again, shortsighted. There's no reason a business has to have a single product. If you run out of customers for cars, you make HVAC and front end loaders. A lot of companies simply have no direction and aren't looking to build new products. They had a success, rotated in some myopic execs, flipped into rent-seeking mode and are trying to wring more cash out of the same progressive enshittified product.

Generally you can only profitably expand into adjacent products. Making and selling cars and HVACs are completely different, meaning that your expansion will be starting from zero knowledge. Furthermore, the sales channel of HVACs, sales strategies, etc. is not likely to have much in common with that for cars, so you are essentially creating a whole new startup company. (In the case of HVACs, it would be a startup in a commodity market, which would make no sense, because commodity markets have no real profits.) Doing one thing well is not just Unix philosophy, it is also a sound business strategy. Of course, usually adjacent things that could be done well suggest themselves, but often there is a limit to these.

Re: The Companies Cutting Headcount for AI Will Lose to the Ones Who Didn't

#148

Post by boredatoms »

Curosinono wrote: post #140
disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the unfortunate reality is that lots of companies in our industry have suspiciously inflated employee counts in the first place. Even when removing AI and the pandemic over-hiring, I wouldn't have been surprised to see corrections sooner or later. It's funny to me that everyone talks about pandemic over-hiring, as if this hadn't been a thing for a decade before that. Like, when I started at FB in 2013, they…

FB is the weirdest company though. For a lot of companies like gitlab you know they have sales for customers, roadmap for their core product etc. FB has what? Intel has around the same number of people and they make chips, laptops, different types of chips. Hardware, software, supply chain etc. FB does what? And what do they do with all these very well paid people?!

They do A/B tests all day

Re: The Companies Cutting Headcount for AI Will Lose to the Ones Who Didn't

#150

Post by steveBK123 »

yojo wrote: post #135
Forgeties79 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlimited PTO works great for someone like me who regularly takes half day and full day PTO every quarter for various commitments/life stuff. But I’m also a guy and I have no problem asserting myself/spending my benefits. People who are a little less comfortable with that end up just parking on it and would do a lot better if they were given a set number of PTO days. The ambiguity hurts them in the same way not havin…

Before unlimited PTO took off, standard in FAANG-like (US) industry was ~12 corp holidays + 15-25 days annual PTO, depending on seniority. I don’t know anyone who takes the high end of that anymore, especially senior/staff folks. Unlimited PTO takes a liability off the company’s books, and makes every time off request a negotiation.

> Unlimited PTO takes a liability off the company’s books, and makes every time off request a negotiation.

This is 100% it.

Post reply on HN