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

191–197 of 197 posts

Re: Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change

#191

Post by rsynnott »

goalieca wrote: post #134
greyb wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. I'm not disputing your point, but I'm curious: given that the main headline measures that we tend to see about the US economy right now involve the labour market. How do you establish the counterfactual?

When there are downturns in tech, companies squeeze out junior people. This happens often. After 2008 a whole cohort of top talent from software engineering schools were lucky to get lower paying QA jobs and only a few landed software development positions. There were chief economists for banks writing about the underemployed generation (generalized to all white collar) and how they can’t get started or have the same…

> I think we might be seeing this now but headlines get more clicks with AI taking our jobs.

Note that last time round it took the media a year or so to _notice_; it didn't immediately become clear what was going on.

Re: Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change

#192

Post by westurner »

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?

Did tech reduce hiring after Section 174 R&D tax policy changes?

From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45131866 :

> In 2017 Trump made businesses have to amortize these [R&D] expenses over 5 years instead of deducting them, starting in 2022 (it is common for an administration to write laws that will only have a negative effect after they're gone). This move wrecked the R&D tax credit. Many US businesses stopped claiming R&D tax credits entirely as a result. Others had surprise tax bills.

Then companies bought their own stock instead of investing in labor:

"S&P 500 Buybacks Now Outpace All R&D Spending in the US" (2019) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21762582

People just want the same R&D tax incentives back:

"Tell HN: Help restore the tax deduction for software dev in the US (Section 174)" (2025 (2439 points)) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44226145

Re: Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change

#193

Post by jf22 »

carlosjobim wrote: post #168
jf22 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what you're saying. >Practically the whole planet is experiencing population decline now. That's objectively false.

It's easy to understand, how can you not understand? Any population increase is just a very short and temporary happening when births are below replacement level. Which they are in almost every country on the globe, with a few exceptions.

Yeah sure, but populations are increasing TODAY as in NOW and will happen for multiple decades for most countries.

Your statement about populations declining is just untrue.

Re: Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change

#194

Post by giantg2 »

codebje wrote: post #183
giantg2 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

The numbers say otherwise. The US is outsourcing about 300k jobs annually, with about 75% of those being tech. The trend has generally increased over the past decade.

Re: Generative AI as Seniority-Biased Technological Change

#196

Post by bobafett-9902 »

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…

Mark Sullivan wrote a great piece covering the summarized sentiment of a few: The vibe coding hangover is upon us https://www.fastcompany.com/91398622/the-vibe-coding-hangove...
Post reply on HN