Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Soon we'll start having juniors who started out with this stuff. But who will hire them? Businesses are ramping down from hiring juniors, since apparently a few good seniors with AI can replace them (in the minds of the people doing the hiring). Or is it that when all of the previous batch of seniors have retired or died of old age, businesses will have no option but to hire juniors trained "the new way", without a…
> But who will hire them? Anyone who wants a competitive advantage? My claim is that the gap between junior and senior has temporarily widened, which is why someone who previously would want to hire juniors might not right now. But I expect it will narrow as a generation that learned on this stuff comes into the fold, probably to a smaller gap than existed pre-LLM. I think it will also narrow if the tools continue to…
Do you mean long-term vision? Short-term the advantage is in hiring only seniors, but do you mean companies will foresee trouble looming ahead and "waste" money on juniors just to avert this disaster?
My own feeling is that this could become like a sort of... well, I recently heard of the term "population time bomb", and it was eye-opening for me. How once it starts rolling, it's incredibly hard/impossible to revert, etc.
So what if we have some sort of "experience time bomb" here? Businesses stop hiring juniors. Seniors are needed to make AI work, but their experience isn't passed on because... who to pass it to? And then juniors won't have this wealth of "on the job experience" to be able to smell AI disaster and course-correct. The kind of experience you learn from actual work, not books.