Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change • Hacker News Board

Re: Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change

#181

Post by danielheath » Tue, Sep 16, 2025, 11:24 PM UTC

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…

At least for developers, AI can absolutely do the same quality work as most fresh graduates - and the business case for hiring fresh graduates was already pretty shaky; IME they take 6+ months to become a net positive (usually more like two years).

I have always kept that latter point to myself at work - the next generation have to learn somewhere, and training them can be a pleasure (depending on the person) - but even quite good folk with 4-5 years of experience need (what feels like) a lot of assistance to understand/follow the architecture laid out for them.

I don’t use AI to help me code because IME it’s no better than an enthusiastic junior dev who doesn’t learn, and helping them learn is the main reason I might want to work with such a dev.

Re: Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change

#182

Post by osigurdson » Tue, Sep 16, 2025, 11:54 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #167

osigurdson wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, I don't understand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlackRock They are the world’s largest asset manager. So goes the economy, so goes the economic outcome of their clients.

Yes, of course familiar with BlackRock. People say they own everything, but they really just have ETFs. The biggest problem is the fact that they seem to have voting rights on the stocks that they purchase on behalf of their clients - it should not work like this.

Re: Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change

#183

Post by codebje » Wed, Sep 17, 2025, 12:29 AM UTC

giantg2 wrote: post #179

spacephysics wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Knowledge workers aren't fungible, and outsourcing them always fails.

Re: Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change

#184

Post by marcospolanco » Wed, Sep 17, 2025, 1:25 AM UTC

ACCount37 wrote: post #146

PKop wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or H1B / outsourcing replacement. There are data points showing tech companies hiring thousands of foreign workers while layout off domestic employees. It should factor in to these analyses of displaced junior developers.

The usual outsourcing capitals of the world also report considerable job losses.

That stands to reason...the human labor per line of code is plunging...my own delegation to overseas engineers is way down.

Re: Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change

#185

Post by rafaelero » Wed, Sep 17, 2025, 2:44 AM UTC

elevatortrim wrote: post #49

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…

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?

It compares AI-adopting companies with non-adopting firms, so that should account for the overall economic scenario.

Re: Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change

#186

Post by HellDunkel » Wed, Sep 17, 2025, 5:30 AM UTC

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?

I can‘t believe we are really calling things „ai agents“ these days…

Re: Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change

#187

Post by PeterStuer » Wed, Sep 17, 2025, 7:33 AM UTC

I bet those youngsters still have a much easier time than a seasoned 60+ yo with proven AI skills in landing a new job.

Re: Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change

#188

Post by haijo2 » Wed, Sep 17, 2025, 10:18 AM UTC

PolicyPhantom wrote: post #139

JustExAWS wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course I meant 3-5 years of experience not 35 years of experience. :) I just edited it. You’re not “investing” in anyone if their tenure is going to be 2-3 years with the first one doing negative work. And why should juniors stay? Because of salary compression and inversion, where HR determines raises. But the free market determines comp for new employees, it makes sense for them to jump ship to make more money. I…

I hear you — salary compression and inversion, along with short tenure, are very real structural problems. It’s understandable that managers and even directors end up focused only on the next quarter. My broader point is that when these short-term incentives dominate, organizations (and societies) lose the capacity to build for the long term. That’s exactly why governance frameworks matter: they help create safeguard…

Nobody is really behaving in a manner that is tied with long term thinking anymore.

Everything is short term. Just look at the equity market - its all pricing not intrinsic valuation, based on forecasting cash flows out in perpetuity.

Folks need to wake up to this realisation and just accept it as a flaw of the system we operate in. Until the system is revised and redesigned, its not gonna change.

Re: Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change

#189

Post by zeuch » Wed, Sep 17, 2025, 11:16 AM UTC

Reading through this thread, it feels like there are two main camps:

1. Those who see this as mostly macroeconomics + hype (high interest rates, weak economy, AI as a convenient excuse).

2. Those who believe AI is genuinely reshaping the work structure (seniors + AI can cover more ground, making juniors less necessary).

Maybe it’s both. The economy explains why companies are cautious now, but AI explains where they are cutting first — the “bottom rungs.”

The bigger question, then, is: even if AI isn’t the sole cause, what happens when a whole generation of juniors doesn’t get trained? That’s not just a company-level problem, it’s an industry-wide pipeline issue.

How do we avoid a tragedy of the commons here — where everyone optimizes short-term and we end up with fewer capable seniors in 10 years?

Re: Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change

#190

Post by PolicyPhantom » Wed, Sep 17, 2025, 11:58 AM UTC

haijo2 wrote: post #188

PolicyPhantom wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear you — salary compression and inversion, along with short tenure, are very real structural problems. It’s understandable that managers and even directors end up focused only on the next quarter. My broader point is that when these short-term incentives dominate, organizations (and societies) lose the capacity to build for the long term. That’s exactly why governance frameworks matter: they help create safeguard…

Nobody is really behaving in a manner that is tied with long term thinking anymore. Everything is short term. Just look at the equity market - its all pricing not intrinsic valuation, based on forecasting cash flows out in perpetuity. Folks need to wake up to this realisation and just accept it as a flaw of the system we operate in. Until the system is revised and redesigned, its not gonna change.

True — short-termism is deeply baked into the current system, from equity markets to corporate incentives.

But that’s exactly why we need governance frameworks: markets alone won’t correct for long-term stability. Well-designed institutions can act as the counterweight — whether in finance or in AI policy.