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

171–180 of 197 posts

Re: Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change

#171

Post by apercu »

lukev wrote: post #18

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 exte…

There are a lot of people who only care about how much leveraging AI will net them personally, very little thought is being given to the efficacy of current LLMs beyond this for many folks.

Re: Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change

#172

Post by jonathanrmumm »

thw_9a83c wrote: post #29

In the future, there will be two kinds of companies: 1. Those that encourage people to use AI agents aggressively to increase productivity. 2. Those that encourage people to use AI agents aggressively to be more productive while still hiring young people. Which type of company will be more innovative, productive, and successful in the long run?

3. Young people who realize this dynamic and start their own companies because old people are less energetic toward picking up new tools / learning new tricks and run circles around them.

Re: Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change

#176

Post by giantg2 »

lukev wrote: post #18

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 exte…

"Or are companies doing this on the expectation that AI is advanced enough to pick up the slack?"

I think it's the expectation. We have some publicized examples of needing to hire people back. My company isn't laying off, but they also aren't hiring much, especially at the entry level. They're also trying to force attrition with PIPs and stuff. If it was a right now thing, they'd just layoff.

Also, just because coding gets 30% faster (say some studies), doesn't mean that's a 30% reduction in headcount since many tasks are about design and stuff. This seems to further point to a lack of hiring being anticipatory in my estimation.

Re: Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change

#177

Post by PolicyPhantom »

Andrex wrote: post #159
jexe wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a lot to invest in someone at a large comparative loss, in a world where employees don't last more than a couple years before job hopping.

Maybe this is unpopular, but what if 5/10-year long contracts started getting traction? I guess you'd need to trust the company, which is hard to come by.

Interesting thought — long-term contracts could indeed align incentives for growth and stability. The challenge, as you note, is trust: few employees or companies are willing to bind themselves for 5–10 years in today’s fluid market.

That’s why governance frameworks (whether in labor or in AI) matter: they provide external guarantees of trust where bilateral promises may not hold.

Re: Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change

#178

Post by zelda420 »

krapht wrote: post #138
zelda420 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And most of my friends and colleagues would take a full remote role that pays half what big tech, 5 days in office pays. Add in an extra week of PTO and you have a great pitch to devs.

I'll believe it when I see it reflected in applicant resumes. (east coast tech firm)

What do you mean? You’re not getting applicant resumes to your smaller org?

I personally turned down an Apple offer because they required 3 days in office and went this a much smaller fully remote team.

Re: Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change

#179

Post by giantg2 »

spacephysics wrote: post #67
elevatortrim wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not see anything in this study that accounts for the decline in economic activity. Is it AI replacing the jobs, or is it that companies are not optimistically hiring, which disproportionally impacts entry level jobs?

Agree, I think the high cost of full time hires for entry level software jobs (total comp + onboarding + mentoring) vs investing in AI and seeing if that gap can be filled is a far less risky choice at the current economic state. 6-12 months in, the AI bet doesnt pay off, then just stop spending money in it. cancel/dont renew contracts and move some teams around. For full time entry hires, we typically dont see meani…

"I think the high cost of full time hires for entry level software jobs (total comp + onboarding + mentoring) vs investing in AI and seeing if that gap can be filled"

I think it's more to do with the outsourcing. Software is going the same way as manufacturing jobs. Automation hurts a little, but outsourcing kills.

Re: Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change

#180

Post by oinfoalgo »

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.

10 years is Hassabis current AGI projection.

I think this is the gambit that we have already committed to.

Post reply on HN