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

181–190 of 218 posts

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

#181

Post by squidbeak »

mlsu wrote: post #132

These two ideas, that (1) AI is making people more productive and (2) we are laying off employees because AI replaces them. Those two ideas are mutually incompatible. When employees become more productive, you always always always want to hire more of them, because it’s a multiplier on your outputs and therefore an efficient use of resources. That is why one of these narratives is total bullshit. Either “layoffs from…

This is a simple economic fallacy. Your idea holds true if your business has room for growth, but you always need a market for those multiplied outputs. In an economy where every business has multiplied outputs, but demand doesn't scale with those outputs, what do you think happens?

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

#182

Post by giancarlostoro »

I think we're forgetting the companies somewhere in the middle: letting employees use AI, and refine their internal process, and not wasting time on "tokenmaxxing" and just building better products, the companies you rarely hear about, because if you're doing things right people don't notice as much as if you mess things up.

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

#183

Post by austin-cheney »

squidbeak wrote: post #177
austin-cheney wrote: post #69

I agree with the article in its entirety, but its just so easy to play devil's advocate here. There might actually be a large value add to companies who replace poor performing employees with AI. So, who are the low versus high performing employees? The largest problem with software employment is defining software developer performance. There is no industry baseline for defining or measuring this. Its so easy for a p…

The problem for high-performing developers (even the elitest) is that over a long enough time scale, they won't be remotely competitive with high performing AI. At the moment we need human operators to guide and supervise these AIs, but unless the tech's progress grinds to a halt for some unforeseeable reason, it won't be this way for long.

I know this is a common belief, but its an assumption lacking evidence.

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

#184

Post by matheusmoreira »

dosinga wrote: post #161

Does anybody else find this article reads really AI written? The way the argument is built, the emdashes, the dramatic one sentence paragraph: "That assumption is wrong." "The human is the equation. AI is what makes that equation run faster." -- what?

> The Atlas Interfaces drift alone in the endless void. They are silent. They are unknowable fragments of an ancient whole. Yet their imprint on time and space molds our existence. They are the equation, and life is its answer. Through their Monoliths they give understanding to their boundless meaning, and that of our own.

Testament of the Korvax, No Man's Sky.

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

#185

Post by marcosdumay »

embedding-shape wrote: post #8

Cutting people because of AI makes no sense, you know these people are good without AI, you'd want to keep them! Freeze the constant over-hiring instead, and take care of the people you know aren't lobotomized yet, and train them if needed. I'm seeing so much shedding of knowledge workers though, even though AI clearly isn't ready to replace people, just ready to augment them currently, that it looks like looney-tune…

The AI story is a cover for the companies becoming less profitable in a bad economy, less able to invest because of the end of ZIRP, not capable of finding new markets, and developers becoming more expensive due to changes in accounting laws on the US.

People keep trying to make sense from the official story told by professional liars.

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

#186

Post by dualvariable »

This is some hopium/copium that the corporate world will trend to being naturally fair and ethical.

Amazon was always an asshole-driven company which did topgrading layoffs annually at the start of every year. It has never suffered because of that.

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

#187

Post by Forgeties79 »

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.

To be clear we still get federal holidays. So I net probably 30-40 days a year.

Again, the system works for me. But it is also a constant negotiation/workplace culture consideration, so I am not advocating for it writ large. I’m just lucky I work at a company that doesn’t put pressure on people not to utilize their PTO.

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

#188

Post by Forgeties79 »

ulfw wrote: post #154
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…

You take 1.5x4 = 6 days of vacation per YEAR and use this as an argument for... wait... what exactly? Huh?

Please read my edit

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

#189

Post by Forgeties79 »

testing22321 wrote: post #138
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…

> someone like me who regularly half day and full day PTO every quarter So you take something less than 10 days off a year? In all developed countries bar one that is against the law for being so few days off. You are being abused.

No, that is incorrect. See my edit

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

#190

Post by WarmWash »

titanomachy wrote: post #122
WarmWash wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The upside is that it will cull those in it just for the money/lifestyle, and concentrate it down to those in it for the love of the craft. Is that what you see at your uncle's boiler company? People who are truly in it "for the love of the craft"?

Nobody does a 6 month bootcamp so they can get into a fastener engineering career making $85k/yr.
Post reply on HN