The ‘white-collar bloodbath’ is all part of the AI hype machine

2025-05-3013:387131240www.cnn.com

If the CEO of a soda company declared that soda-making technology is getting so good it’s going to ruin the global economy, you’d be forgiven for thinking that person is either lying or fully detached…

A version of this story appeared in CNN Business’ Nightcap newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.

If the CEO of a soda company declared that soda-making technology is getting so good it’s going to ruin the global economy, you’d be forgiven for thinking that person is either lying or fully detached from reality.

Yet when tech CEOs do the same thing, people tend to perk up.

ICYMI: The 42-year-old billionaire Dario Amodei, who runs the AI firm Anthropic, told Axios this week that the technology he and other companies are building could wipe out half of all entry-level office jobs … sometime soon. Maybe in the next couple of years, he said.

He reiterated that claim in an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper on Thursday.

“AI is starting to get better than humans at almost all intellectual tasks, and we’re going to collectively, as a society, grapple with it,” Amodei told Cooper. “AI is going to get better at what everyone does, including what I do, including what other CEOs do.”

To be clear, Amodei didn’t cite any research or evidence for that 50% estimate. And that was just one of many of the wild claims he made that are increasingly part of a Silicon Valley script: AI will fix everything, but first it has to ruin everything. Why? Just trust us.

In this as-yet fictional world, “cancer is cured, the economy grows at 10% a year, the budget is balanced — and 20% of people don’t have jobs,” Amodei told Axios, repeating one of the industry’s favorite unfalsifiable claims about a disease-free utopia on the horizon, courtesy of AI.

But how will the US economy, in particular, grow so robustly when the jobless masses can’t afford to buy anything? Amodei didn’t say.

(As an aside: I asked labor economist Aaron Sojourner about this scenario of high unemployment plus strong economic growth, and he said there is a theory of the case, if you squint really hard. Amodei may believe that AI can increase productivity and make each hour of labor create more goods and services. But if that’s the case, he’s imagining “a 30% jump in labor productivity to get that combination of unemployment and GDP growth,” said Sojourner, a senior researcher at the W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. “That is a wildly unprecedented vision,” he added, noting that in the 1980s and 90s, computer adoption gave the world all kinds of tools that reshaped the labor market. But labor productivity grew just 2% to 3%.)

Anyway. The point is, Amodei is a salesman, and it’s in his interest to make his product appear inevitable and so powerful it’s scary. Axios framed Amodei’s economic prediction as a “white-collar bloodbath.”

Even some AI optimists were put off by Amodei’s stark characterization.

“Someone needs to remind the CEO that at one point there were more than (2 million) secretaries. There were also separate employees to do in office dictation,” wrote tech entrepreneur Mark Cuban on Bluesky. “They were the original white collar displacements. New companies with new jobs will come from AI and increase TOTAL employment.”

Little of what Amodei told Axios was new, but it was calibrated to sound just outrageous enough to draw attention to Anthropic’s work, days after it released a major model update to its Claude chatbot, one of the top rivals to OpenAI’s ChatGPT.

Amodei stands to profit off the very technology he claims will gut the labor market. But here he is, telling everyone the truth and sounding the alarm! He’s trying to warn us, he’s one of the good ones!

Yeaaahhh. So, this is kind of Anthropic’s whole ~thing.~ It refers to itself primarily as an “AI safety and research” company. They are the AI guys who see the potential harms of AI clearly — not through the rose-colored glasses worn by the techno-utopian simps over at OpenAI. (In fact, Anthropic’s founders, including Amodei, left OpenAI over ideological differences.)

Look, I want to live a cancer-free utopia where I only have to work a few hours a week and there’s no poverty and stuff just works. But do I believe that generative AI is the key to unlocking that fantasyland? I do not. And no tech pioneers have proven their case.

Generative AI from large language models like ChatGPT and Claude are really good at some very specific stuff: They can summarize documents, write dumb emails, help kids cheat on their homework, and even recommend summer reading lists so obscure not even the authors knew they’d written them. Heck, they could probably generate this newsletter and mimic my voice.

But they hit their limits fast. They hallucinate. They get basic facts wrong. They are susceptible to manipulation. (And those are all things we human beings can do just fine on our own.)

If AI companies can take these handy, quasi-reliable text predictors and turn them into an economic revolution, fine. But that seems so far off in the future that Amodei’s warnings feel more like an ad than a PSA. It’s on them to show their work: Show us how AI could be so destructive and how Anthropic can fix it — rather than just shouting about the risks.


Read the original article

Comments

  • By simonsarris 2025-05-313:2028 reply

    I think the real white collar bloodbath is that the end of ZIRP was the end of infinite software job postings, and the start of layoffs. I think its easy to now point to AI, but it seems like a canard for the huge thing that already happened.

    just look at this:

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1JmOr

    In terms of magnitude the effect of this is just enormous and still being felt, and never recovered to pre-2020 levels. It may never. (Pre-pandemic job postings indexed to 100, its at 61 for software)

    Maybe AI is having an effect on IT jobs though, look at the unique inflection near the start of 2025: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1JmOv

    For another point of comparison, construction and nursing job postings are higher than they were pre-pandemic (about 120 and 116 respectively, where pre-pandemic was indexed to 100. Banking jobs still hover around 100.)

    I feel like this is almost going to become lost history because the AI hype is so self-insistent. People a decade from now will think Elon slashed Twitter's employee count by 90% because of some AI initiative, and not because he simply thought he could run a lot leaner. We're on year 3-4 of a lot of other companies wondering the same thing. Maybe AI will play into that eventually. But so far companies have needed no such crutch for reducing headcount.

    • By rglover 2025-05-3118:071 reply

      IMO this is dead on. AI is a hell of a scapegoat for companies that want to save face and pretend that their success wasn't because of cheap money being pumped into them. And in a world addicted to status games, that's a gift from the heavens.

      • By esperent 2025-06-010:522 reply

        ZIRP is an American thing? In that case maybe we could try comparisons with the job markets in other developed Western countries that didn't have this policy. If it was because of ZIRP, then their job markets should show clearly different patterns.

        • By rglover 2025-06-0119:10

          ZIRP was a central banking thing, not just an American phenomenon. At least in the tech industry, the declines we're seeing in job opportunities are a result of capital being more expensive for VCs, meaning less investments are made (both in new and existing businesses), meaning there's less cash to hire and expand with. It just felt like the norm because ZIRP ran more or less uninterrupted for 10 years.

          You're right that we should see comparisons in other developed countries, but with SV being the epicenter of it all, you'd expect the fallout to at least appear more dramatic in the U.S.

          And an overwhelming number of (focusing exclusively on the U.S.) tech "businesses" weren't businesses (i.e., little to no profitability). At best they were failed experiments, and at worst, tax write-offs for VCs.

          So, what looked like a booming industry (in the literal, "we have a working, profitable, cash-flowing business here" sense) was actually just companies being flooded with investment cash that they were eager to spend in pursuit of rapid growth. Some found profitability, many did not.

          Again, IMO, AI isn't so much the cause as it is the bandage over the wound of unprofitability.

        • By Armisael16 2025-06-013:22

          There isn’t anything magically about precisely zero percent interest rates; the behavior we see is mostly a smooth extension of slightly higher rates, which the EU was at.

          And of course ZIRP was pioneered in Japan, not the US.

    • By perrygeo 2025-05-3114:083 reply

      Such an important point, I've seen and suspected the end of ZIRP being a much much greater influence on white collar work than we suspect. AI is going to take all the negative press but the flow of capital is ultimately what determines how the business works, which determines what software gets built. Conway's law 101. The white collar bloodbath is more of a haircut to shed waste accumulated during the excesses of ZIRP.

      • By hoosieree 2025-06-011:03

        AI also happens to be a perfect scapegoat: CEOs who over-hired get to shift the blame to this faceless boogeyman, and (bonus!) new hires are more desperate/willing to accept worse compensation.

      • By steveBK123 2025-05-3117:00

        ZIRP and then the final gasp of COVID bubble over hiring.

        At least in my professional circles the number of late 2020-mid 2022 job switchers was immense. Like 10 years of switches condensed into 18-24 months.

        Further lot of experiences and anecdotes talking to people who saw their company/org/team double or triple in size when comparing back to 2019.

        Despite some waves of mag7 layoffs we are still I think digesting what was essentially an overhiring bubble.

      • By steve_adams_86 2025-05-3122:50

        Is it negative press for AI, or is it convincing some investors that it’s actually causing a tectonic shift in the workforce and economy? It could be positive in some sense. Though ultimately negative, because the outcomes are unlikely to reflect a continuation of the perceived impact or imaginary progress of the technology.

    • By e40 2025-05-317:352 reply

      Also section 174’s amortization of software development had a big role.

      • By Lu2025 2025-05-3119:181 reply

        I agree, R&D change is what triggered 2022 tech layoffs. Coders used to be free, all this play with Metaverse and such was on public dime. As soon as a company had to spend real money, it all came crashing down.

        • By rbultje 2025-05-3121:092 reply

          This is a weird take. Employees are supposed to be business expenses, that's the core idea of running a business: profit = revenue - expenses, where expenses are personnel / materials, and pay taxes over profit. Since the R&D change, businesses can't fully expense employees and need to pay (business) taxes over their salaries. Employees - of course - still pay personal taxes also (as was always the case).

          • By e40 2025-05-3121:501 reply

            Yeah, free is a bit of a odd take. ! ZIRP + section 174 was a huge simultaneous blow to tech.

            I would add one more: me too-ism from CEOs following Musk after the twitter reductions. I think many tech CEOs (e.g., Zuck) hate their workforce with a passion and used the layoff culture to unwind things and bring their workforce to heel (you might be less vocal in this sort of environment... think of the activists that used to work at Google).

            • By Lu2025 2025-06-010:512 reply

              > me too-ism from CEOs following Musk after the twitter reductions

              I see evidence of a collusion. My friends at several tech companies (software and hardware) received very similar sounding emails in similar time frame. I think the goal was "salary compression". Management was terrified of the turnover and salary growth so they decided to act. They threw a bunch of people on the labor market at once to cool it down. It would normalize eventually but you don't need long. Fired H1-B holders have to find a new job within 2 months or self deport.

              • By e40 2025-06-013:15

                Totally agree. They wanted to mess with supply/demand to lower salaries. A lot of very highly paid people were laid off or forced out. RTO is really about shedding people, too, so let's not forget about that.

              • By woke_ai_god 2025-06-080:39

                We know all of these tech CEO's were on group chats with each other planning for how to install Trump as monarch. I would think, if you had several billionaires and industry leaders all participating day in and day out in the same secret group chats with each other, it would not be that difficult for them to coordinate layoffs with each other. Turning it from competition against each other for labor, to a cartel which just attempts to break the labor supply.

          • By sharpshadow 2025-05-3123:20

            If a software engineer in a R&D project is using a AI service to develop the software, does the bill count as company business expense or does it fall under section 174?

      • By jki275 2025-05-3113:321 reply

        That's about to get repealed it looks like.

        • By latchkey 2025-05-3115:571 reply

          TACO

          • By immibis 2025-05-3116:044 reply

            For those unaware, the "TACO trade" is when Wall Street investors trade based on the principle that "Trump Always Chickens Out". For example, buying in a tariff-induced dip on the principle that he'll probably repeal the tariffs.

            Now that someone's said to Trump's face that Wall Street thinks he always chickens out, he may or may not stop doing it.

            • By JumpCrisscross 2025-05-3116:473 reply

              > Now that someone's said to Trump's face that Wall Street thinks he always chickens out, he may or may not stop doing it

              The point is he’s powerless not to. The alternative is allowing a bond rout to trigger a bank collapse, probably in rural America. He didn’t do the prep that produces actual leverage. (Xi did.)

              • By alfiedotwtf 2025-06-010:591 reply

                This was the most interesting thing I found during the past few weeks - even “The US President is the most powerful man in the world” can’t win a war against the bond market.

              • By harmmonica 2025-05-3118:532 reply

                Can you expand on "probably in rural America"? Do you just mean that those smaller community banks are more at risk if rates rise? If so, because they issue more variable rate debt? Or is there something else?

                edit: grammar

              • By lazide 2025-05-3117:05

                Never assume a narcissist will take the sane way out when their game blows up in their face.

            • By darepublic 2025-05-3116:551 reply

              Don't look a gift taco in the mouth

            • By wonderwonder 2025-06-010:51

              yeah, I thought the same thing. Steel tariff announcement is the first real test. Announcing the US Steel merger? / purchase? at the same time I think is part of the plan. I think he is going to stick this one out to prove them wrong. Would be interesting to see if TACO is even real, I could see someone on wall street opening a ton of puts, making the story up and then leaking the fake story to the reporter.

              Mission accomplished.

            • By latchkey 2025-05-3117:50

              And the reason why I said it is because 174 is part of Trump's Cut^3 bill from 2017. DOE 174.

    • By leptons 2025-05-3117:141 reply

      What's happening now is similar to what happened during the 2000's "dot-com bubble burst". Having barely survived that time, I saw this one coming and people told me I was crazy when I told them to hold on to their jobs and quit job-hopping, because the job-hopper is very often the first one to get laid off.

      In 2000 I was moved cities and I had a job lined-up at a company that was run by my friends, I had about 15 good friends working at the company including the CEO, and I was guaranteed the job in software development at the company. The interview was supposed to be just a formality. So I moved, and went in to see the CEO, and he told me he could not hire me, the funding was cut and there was a hiring freeze. I was devastated. Now what? Well I had to freelance and live on whatever I could scrape together, which was a few hundred bucks a month, if I was lucky. Fortunately the place I moved into was a big house with my friends who worked at said company, and since my rent was so low at the time, they covered me for a couple of years. I did eventually get some freelance work from the company, but things did not really recover until about 2004 when I finally got a full-time programming job, after 4 very difficult years.

      So many tech companies over-hired during covid, there was a gigantic bubble happening with FAANG and every other tech company at the time. The crash in tech jobs was inevitable.

      I feel bad for people who got left out in the cold this time, I know what they are going through.

      • By yellow_lead 2025-05-3117:241 reply

        Those are some great friends. Aside from job hoppers, I noticed there are a lot of company loyalists getting canned too though (i.e worked at MSFT 10 years)

        • By leptons 2025-05-3120:19

          It's not exactly the same this time around, the dot-com bubble was a bit different, but both then and now were preceded by huge hiring bubbles and valuations that were stupid. Now it's a little different 25 years later, tech has advanced and AI means cutting the fat out of a lot of companies, even Microsoft.

          AI is somewhat creating a similar bubble now, because investors still have money, and the current AI efforts are way over-hyped. 6.5 billion paid to aquihire Jony Ive is a symptom of that.

    • By jameslk 2025-05-315:0917 reply

      Keynes suggested that by 2030, we’d be working 15 hour workweeks, with the rest of the time used for leisure. Instead, we chose consumption, and helicopter money gave us bullshit jobs so we could keep buying more bullshit. This is fairly evident by the fact when the helicopter money runs out, all the bullshit jobs get cut.

      AI may give us more efficiency, but it will be filled with more bullshit jobs and consumption, not more leisure.

      • By autobodie 2025-05-315:205 reply

        Keynes lived in a time when the working class was organized and exerting its power over its destiny.

        We live in a time that the working class is unbelievably brainwashed and manipulated.

        • By pif 2025-05-3119:00

          > Keynes lived in a time when the working class ...

          Keynes lived in a time when the working class could not buy cheap from China... and complain that everybody else was doing the same!

        • By kergonath 2025-05-316:522 reply

          He was extrapolating, as well. Going from children in the mines to the welfare state in a generation was quite something. Unfortunately, progress slowed down significantly for many reasons but I don’t think we should really blame Keynes for this.

          > We live in a time that the working class is unbelievably brainwashed and manipulated.

          I think it has always been that way. Looking through history, there are many examples of turkeys voting for Christmas and propaganda is an old invention. I don’t think there is anything special right now. And to be fair to the working class, it’s not hard to see how they could feel abandoned. It’s also broader than the working class. The middle class is getting squeezed as well. The only winners are the oligarchs.

          • By FabHK 2025-05-3114:272 reply

            > progress slowed down significantly for many reasons

            I think progress (in the sense of economic growth) was roughly in line with what Keynes expected. What he didn't expect is that people, instead of getting 10x the living standard with 1/3 the working hours, rather wanted to have 30x the living standard with the same working hours.

            • By Ray20 2025-05-3122:311 reply

              It's not really clear where he got this from.

              Throughout human history, starting with the spread of agriculture, increased labor efficiency has always led to people consuming more, not to them working less.

              Moreover, throughout the 20th century, we saw several periods in different countries when wages rose very rapidly - and this always led to a temporary average increase in hours worked. Because when a worker is told "I'll pay you 50% more" - the answer is usually not "Cool, I can work 30% less", but "Now I'm willing to work 50% more to get 2x of the pay".

              • By jjk166 2025-05-3122:591 reply

                > Throughout human history, starting with the spread of agriculture, increased labor efficiency has always led to people consuming more, not to them working less.

                Can you give a single example where that happened?

                During the industrial revolution it was definitely not what happened. In the late 1700s laborers typically averaged around 80 hours per week. In the 1880s this had decreased to around 60 hours per week. In the 1920s the average was closer to 48 hours per week. By the time Keynes was writing, the 40 hour work week had become standard. Average workweek bottomed out in the mid 1980s in the US and UK at about 37 hours before starting to increase again.

          • By ireadmevs 2025-05-319:074 reply

            There’s no middle class. You either have to work for a living or you don’t.

            • By dagw 2025-05-3110:444 reply

              You either have to work for a living or you don’t

              The words 'have to' are doing a lot of work in that statement. Some people 'have to' work to literally put food on the table, other people 'have to' work to able to making payments on their new yacht. The world is full of people who could probably live out the rest of their lives without working any more, but doing so would require drastic lifestyle changes they're not willing to make.

              I personally think the metric should be something along the lines of how long would it take from losing all your income until you're homeless.

              • By nosianu 2025-05-3111:131 reply

                > I personally think the metric should be something along the lines of how long would it take from losing all your income until you're homeless.

                What income? Income from job, or from capital? A huge difference. Also a lot harder to lose the latter, gross incompetence or a revolution, while the former is much easier.

              • By dgfitz 2025-05-3110:521 reply

                The sentence works without those two words. “You either work for a living or you don’t.”

                Now what?

              • By mantas 2025-05-3119:181 reply

                Homeless or loose current house? Downsizing and/or moving to cheaper places could go a long way. Yet loosing current level of housing is what most people think want to avoid.

              • By larrled 2025-05-3115:241 reply

                “from losing all your income until you're homeless.”

                I’m willing to bet you haven’t lived long enough to know that’s a more or less a proxy for old age. :) That aside, even homeless people acquire possessions over time. If you have a lot of homeless in your neighborhood, try to observe that. In my area, many homeless have semi functional motor homes. Are they legit homeless, or are they “homeless oligarchs”? I can watch any of the hundreds of YouTube channels devoted to “van life.” Is a 20 year old who skipped college which their family could have afforded, and is instead living in an $80k van and getting money from streaming a “legit homeless”? The world is not so black and white it will turn out in the long run.

            • By d4mi3n 2025-05-3110:111 reply

              While you’re not wrong in what differentiates those with wealth to those without, I think ignores a lot of nuance.

              Does one have savings? Can they afford to spend time with their children outside of working day to day? Do they have the ability to take reasonable risks without chancing financial ruin in pursuit of better opportunities?

              These are things we typically attribute to someone in the middle class. I worry that boiling down these discussions to “you work and they don’t” misses a lot of opportunity for tangible improvement to quality of life for large number of people.

              • By hobs 2025-05-3111:341 reply

                It doesn't - its a battle cry for the working classes (ie anyone who actually works) to realize they are being exploited by those that simply do not.

                If you have an actual job and an income constrained by your work output, you could be middle class, but you could also recognize that you are getting absolutely ruined by the billionaire class (no matter what your level of working wealth)

            • By freefrog334433 2025-06-013:03

              Traditionally there were the English upper class, who had others work for them, and the working class who did. Doctors and Bankers were the middle class, because they owned houses with 6-8 servants running it, so while they worked, they also had plenty of people working for them.

              I agree with your point. Now doctors are working class as well.

            • By laughing_man 2025-06-017:25

              That's reductive. The middle class in the US commonly describes people who have access to goods and services in moderation. You aren't poor just because you can't retire.

        • By eastbound 2025-05-315:344 reply

          It is very possible that foreign powers use AI to generate social media content in mass for propaganda. If anything, the internet up to 2015 seemed open for discussion and swaying by real people’s opinion (and mockery of the elite classes), while manipulation and manufactured consent became the norm after 2017.

          • By kergonath 2025-05-316:54

            > It is very possible that foreign powers use AI to generate social media content in mass for propaganda.

            No need for AI. Troll farms are well documented and were in action before transformers could string two sentences together.

          • By amarcheschi 2025-05-318:061 reply

            Italian party Lega (in the government coalition) has been using deep fakes for some time now. It's not only ridiculous, it's absolutely offensive to the people they mock - von Der leyen, other Italian politicians... -

          • By rusk 2025-05-316:11

            This is a pre-/post- Snowden & Schrems, which challenged the primary economic model of the internet as a surveillance machine.

            All the free money dried up and the happy clapping Barney the Dinosaur Internet was no more!

        • By hoseyor 2025-05-3110:282 reply

          He also lived in a time when the intense importance and function of a moral and cultural framework for society was taken for granted. He would have never imagined the level of social and moral degeneration of today.

          I will not go into specifics because the authoritarians still disagree and think everything is fine with degenerative debauchery and try to abuse anyone even just pointing to failing systems, but it all does seem like civilization ending developments regardless of whether it leads to the rise of another civilization, e.g., the Asian Era, i.e., China, India, Russia, Japan, et al.

          Ironically, I don’t see the US surviving this transitional phase, especially considering it essentially does not even really exist anymore at its core. Would any of the founders of America approve of any of America today? The forefathers of India, China, Russia, and maybe Japan would clearly approve of their countries and cultures. America is a hollowed out husk with a facade of red, white, and blue pomp and circumstance that is even fading, where America means both everything and nothing as a manipulative slogan to enrich the few, a massive private equity raid on America.

          When you think of the Asian countries, you also think of distinct and unique cultures that all have their advantages and disadvantages, the true differences that make them true diversity that makes humanity so wonderful. In America you have none of that. You have a decimated culture that is jumbled with all kinds of muddled and polluted cultures from all over the place, all equally confused and bewildered about what they are and why they feel so lost only chasing dollars and shiny objects to further enrich the ever smaller group of con artist psychopathic narcissists at the top, a kind of worst form of aristocracy that humanity has yet ever produced, lacking any kind of sense of noblesse oblige, which does not even extend to simply not betraying your own people.

          • By komali2 2025-05-3110:491 reply

            That a capitalist society might achieve a 15 hour workweek if it maintained a "non debauched culture" and "culture homogeneity" is an extraordinary claim I've never seen a scrap of evidence for. Can you support this extraordinary claim?

            That there's any cultural "degenerative debauchery" is an extraordinary claim. Can you back up this claim with evidence?

            "Decimated," "muddled," and "polluted" imply you have an objective analysis framework for culture. Typically people who study culture avoid moralizing like this because one very quickly ends up looking very foolish. What do you know that the anthropologists and sociologists don't, to where you use these terms so freely?

            If I seem aggressive, it's because I'm quite tired of vague handwaving around "degeneracy" and identity politics. Too often these conversations are completely presumptive.

            • By chucksmash 2025-05-3117:291 reply

              > That there's any cultural "degenerative debauchery" is an extraordinary claim. Can you back up this claim with evidence?

              What's the sense in asking for examples? If one person sees ubiquitous cultural decay and the other says "this is fine," I think the difference is down to worldview. And for a pessimist and an optimist to cite examples at one another is unlikely to change the other's worldview.

              If a pessimist said, "the opioid crisis is deadlier than the crack epidemic and nobody cares," would that change the optimist's mind?

              If a pessimist said, "the rate of suicide has increased by 30% since the year 2000," would that change the optimist's mind?

              If a pessimist said, "corporate profits, wealth inequality, household debt, and homelessness are all at record highs," ...?

              And coming from the other side, all these things can be Steven Pinker'd if you want to feel like "yes there are real problems but actually things are better than ever."

              There was a book that said something about "you will recognize them by their fruit." If these problems are the fruit born of our culture, it's worth asking how we got here instead of dismissing it with "What do you know that the anthropologists and sociologists don't?"

              • By komali2 2025-06-022:14

                Sure some things are subjective but wide-ranging and vague claims are unactionable and therefore imo should simply be ignored. If someone's going to say something like that I think it's worth challenging them to get specific and actionable.

                I also wholeheartedly disagree that, vaguely, diversity has something to do with the reduction of material conditions, or gay people, or whatever tf, so I wanted to allow the op the opportunity to be demonstrably wrong. They wouldn't take it of course, because there's no evidence for what they claim, because it's a ridiculous assertion.

                The reasons things are they way they are today are identifiable and measurable. Rent is high because mostly because housing is an investment vehicle and supply is locked by a functional cartel. Homelessness is high mostly because of a lack of universal healthcare. Crime is continually dropping despite what the media says, and immigrants commit a lower crime per capita than any other demographic group - but the jails remain full because the USA engages in a demonstrably ineffective retributive justice system.

                I'm so tired of conservatives walking around flinging every which way their feelings as facts. Zizek has demonstrated the potential value of a well considered conservative ideology, and unfortunately today all we get from that side is vague (or explicit) bigotry.

                The OP didn't just claim that there's cultural degeneracy happening (which again, they didn't definite very well), they blamed real-world outcomes on it. That's a challengeable premise.

          • By mlinhares 2025-05-3116:37

            Oh the prized Asian magic, more civilized, less mixed, the magical place.

            Capitalism arrives for everyone, Asia is just late for the party. Once it eventually financializes everything, the same will happen to it. Capitalism eventually eats itself, doesn't matter the language or how many centuries your people might have.

        • By 1776smithadam 2025-05-3117:04

          Keynes didn't anticipate social media

      • By ccorcos 2025-05-3116:141 reply

        If you work 15 hours/week then presumably someone who chose to work 45 hours/week would make 3x more money.

        This creates supply-demand pressure for goods and services. Anything with limited supply such as living in the nice part of town will price out anyone working 15 hours/week.

        And so society finds an equilibrium…

        • By jjk166 2025-05-3123:091 reply

          Presumably the reduction to a 15 hour workweek would be much the same as the reduction to the 40 hour workweek - everyone takes the same reduction in total hours and increase in hourly compensation encoded in labor laws specifically so there isn't this tragedy of the commons.

          • By ccorcos 2025-06-0318:421 reply

            Unless the law forbids working more than 15 hours per week, the numbers will shift around but the supply-demand market equilibrium will remain approximately the same.

            If minimum wage goes up 40/15 = 267%, then the price of your coffee will go up 267% because the coffeeshop owner needs to pay 267% more to keep the cafe staffed.

            The 40 hour work week is something a cultural equilibrium. But we've all heard of doctors, lawyers, and bankers working 100h weeks which affords them some of the most desirable real estate in the world...

            • By jjk166 2025-06-062:07

              > Unless the law forbids working more than 15 hours per week, the numbers will shift around but the supply-demand market equilibrium will remain approximately the same.

              Require anyone working over 15 hours to be paid time and a half overtime. If you want to hire one person to work 40 hours per week, that is 30% more expensive than hiring 3 people to work the same number of hours. In some select instances sure, having a single person do the job is worth the markup, and some people will be willing to work those hours, just like today you have some people working over 40, but in general the market will demand reduction in working hours.

              Similarly, there is a strong incentive to work enough hours to be counted as a full time employee, so the marginal utility of that 35th hour is pretty high currently, whereas if full time benefits and labor protections started at 15 hours, then the marginal utility of that 35th hour would be substantially less.

              > If minimum wage goes up 40/15 = 267%, then the price of your coffee will go up 267% because the coffeeshop owner needs to pay 267% more to keep the cafe staffed.

              That would be true if 100% of the coffee shop's revenue went to wages. Obviously that's not the case. In reality, the shop is buying ingredients, paying rent for the space, paying off capex for the coffee making equipment, utilizing multiple business services like accounting and marketing, and hopefully at the end of the day making some profit. Realistically, wages for a coffee shop are probably 20-30% of revenue. So to cover the increased cost of labor, prices would have to rise 53%. Note that in this scenario you also have 267% more money to spend on coffee.

              Of course there are some more nuances as prices in general inflate. Ultimately though, the equilibrium you reach is that people working minimum wage for a full workweek wind up able to afford 1 minimum-wage workweek worth of goods and services. This holds true in the long term regardless of what level minimum wage is or how long a workweek is. Indeed you could just as easily have everyone's wages stay exactly the same but we are all working less, then we all have less money and there is a deflationary effect but in the long term we wind up at the same situation. Ideally, you'd strike a balance between these two which reaches the same end state with a reasonably steady money supply.

              > The 40 hour work week is something a cultural equilibrium.

              No, it isn't. It is an arbitrary convention, one in a long series which had substantially different values in the past. It has remained constant because it is encoded in law in such a way that it is no longer subject to simple pressures of labor supply and demand.

              > But we've all heard of doctors, lawyers, and bankers working 100h weeks which affords them some of the most desirable real estate in the world...

              There are a lot more than just doctors and lawyers and bankers working long hours. 37% of americans work 2 full time jobs, and most of them aren't exactly in a position to afford extremely desirable real estate. If the workweek were in a equilibrium due to supply and demand, wouldn't these people just be working more hours at their regular jobs?

      • By tim333 2025-05-3110:093 reply

        I think something Keynes got wrong there and much AI job discussion ignores is people like working, subject to the job being fun. Look at the richest people with no need to work - Musk, Buffett etc. Still working away, often well past retirement age with no need for the money. Keynes himself, wealth and probably with tenure working away on his theories. In the UK you can quite easily do nothing by going on disability allowance and doing nothing and many do but they are not happy.

        There can be a certain snobbishness with academics where they are like of course I enjoy working away on my theories of employment but the unwashed masses do crap jobs where they'd rather sit on their arses watching reality TV. But it isn't really like that. Usually.

        • By trinix912 2025-05-3110:291 reply

          The reality of most people is that they need to work to financially sustain themselves. Yes, there are people who just like what they do and work regardless, but I think we shouldn't discount the majority which would drop their jobs or at least work less hours had it not been out of the need for money.

          • By tim333 2025-05-3112:083 reply

            Although in democracies we've largely selected that system. I've been to socialist places - Cuba and Albania before communism collapsed where a lot of people didn't do much but were still housed and fed (not very well - ration books) but no one seems to want to vote that stuff in.

            • By trinix912 2025-05-3112:311 reply

              The thing about those systems is you'd have to forgo the entire notion about private property and wealth as we currently know it for it to work out. Even then, there would be people who wouldn't want to work/contribute and the majority who would contribute the bare minimum (like you're saying). The percentage of people who'd work because they like it wouldn't be much higher than it is now. Or it might be even lower, as money wouldn't be as much of a factor in one's life.

              • By hx8 2025-05-3119:172 reply

                It seems like a democratic system could both maintain private property and make sure all of their citizens have basic needs are satisifed (food, housing, education, medical). I don't see how these two are mutually exclusive, unless you take a hardline that taxation is theft.

            • By ptero 2025-05-3112:56

              While they didn't do much at work and could coast forever, they still had to show up and sit out the hours. And this does seem to correlate highly with ration books. Which are also not amazon-fulfilled, but require going to a store, waiting in line, worring that the rations would run out, yada yada.

              I'll take capitalism with all its warts over that workers paradise any day.

            • By sotix 2025-05-3113:411 reply

              How did you visit Albania before communism collapsed? I thought it was closed off from the world.

              • By tim333 2025-05-3114:551 reply

                Well it was in the middle period when some communism collapsed but Albania was communist still. They did tourist day trips from Corfu to raise some hard currency. It's only about a mile from Albania at the closest point.

        • By timacles 2025-05-3111:312 reply

          What percentage of people would you say like working for fun? Would you really claim they make up a significant portion of society?

          Even myself, work a job that I enjoy building things that I’m good at, that is almost stress free, and after 10-15 years find that I would much rather spend time with my family or even spend a day doing nothing rather than spend another hour doing work for other people. the work never stops coming and the meaninglessness is stronger than ever.

          • By ghaff 2025-05-3121:24

            I think a lot of people would work fewer hours and probably retire earlier if money were absolutely not in the equation. That said, it's also true that there are a lot of things you realistically can't do on your own--especially outside of software.

          • By tim333 2025-05-3112:051 reply

            Well - I guess you are maybe typical in quite liking the work but wanting to do less hours? I saw some research that hunter gatherers work about 20 hours a week - maybe that's an optimum.

            • By chipsrafferty 2025-05-3122:52

              A lot of people like the work they do, but they also like the things they do when they aren't working - more.

        • By navane 2025-05-3110:22

          Meanwhile your examples for happy working are all billionaires who do w/e tf they want, and your example of sad non working are disabled people.

      • By Slow_Hand 2025-05-3119:152 reply

        Not to undercut your point - because you’re largely correct - but this is my reality. I have a decent-paying job in which I work roughly 15 hrs a week. Sometimes more when work scales up.

        That said, I’m not what you’d call a high-earning person (I earn < 100k) I simply live within my means and do my best to curb lifestyle creep. In this way, Keynes’ vision is a reality, but it’s a mindset and we also have to know when enough wealth is enough.

        • By oblio 2025-05-3119:313 reply

          You're lucky. Most companies don't accept that. Frequently, even when they have part time arrangements, the incentives are such that middle managers are incentivized to squeeze you (including squeezing you out), despite company policies and HR mandates.

          • By Slow_Hand 2025-05-3119:46

            I am lucky. I work for a very small consultancy (3 people plus occassional contractors) and am paid a fraction of our net income.

            The arrangement was arrived at because the irregular income schedule makes an hourly wage or a salary a poor option for everyone involved. I’m grateful to work for a company where the owners value not only my time and worth but also value a similar work routine themselves.

          • By ghaff 2025-05-3121:191 reply

            40 hours/week is of course just an established norm for a lot of people and companies. But two 20 hour/week folks tend to cost more than one 40 hour/week person for all sorts of reasons.

            • By babuloseo 2025-05-3122:091 reply

              source?

              • By ghaff 2025-05-3122:24

                Well, for starters people probably want health insurance in the US which often starts at some percentage of full-time. Various other benefits. Then two people are probably just more overhead to manage than one. Though they may offer more flexibility.

          • By tonyedgecombe 2025-05-3121:061 reply

            Which is a shame because I bet most knowledge workers aren't putting in more than three or fours hours of solid work. The rest of the time they are just keeping a seat warm.

            • By gibbitz 2025-06-0116:411 reply

              Spoken like middle management. If a knowledge worker is only putting in 4 hours they're either mismanaged or dead weight. Fire their manager and see if they are more effective, if not, then let them go. As a developer I routinely work 9 hour days without lunch and so do the others on my team and most people I've worked with as a developer. Myths like the 10% developer and lazy 4 hour knowledge workers are like the myth of the welfare queen. We really need to be more aware that when we complain about 5% of people that it becomes 100% to those outside of the field.

              • By tonyedgecombe 2025-06-0210:48

                >As a developer I routinely work 9 hour days without lunch and so do the others on my team and most people I've worked with as a developer.

                I've come across people like you and they don't produce as much value as they think.

        • By howtoquitwell 2025-06-043:24

          I'm working hard on this one. I'm down to a three-day week, and am largely keeping the boundaries around those other four.

          It came about late last year when the current employer started going getting gently waved off in early funding pitches. That resulted in some thrash, forced marches to show we could ship, and the attendant burnout for me and a good chunk of the team I managed. I took a hard look at where the company was and where I was, and decided I didn't have another big grind in me right now.

          Rather than just quit like I probably would have previously, I laid it out to our CEO in terms of what I needed: more time taking care of my family and myself, less pressure to deliver impossible things, and some broad idea of what I could say "no" to. Instead of laughing in my face, he dug in, and we had a frank conversation about what I _was_ willing to sign up for. That in turn resulted in a (slow, still work-in-progress) transition where we hired a new engineering leader and I moved into a customer-facing role with no direct reports.

          Now I to work a part-time schedule, so I can do random "unproductive" things like repair the dishwasher, chaperone the kid's field trip, or spend the afternoon helping my retired dad make a Costco run. I can reasonably stop and say, "I _could_ pay someone to do that for me, but I actually have time this week and I can just get it done" and sometimes I...actually do, which is kind of amazing?

          ...and it's still fucking hard to watch the big, interesting decisions and projects flow by with other people tackling them and not jump in and offer to help. B/c no matter what a dopamine ride that path can be, it also leads to late nights and weekends working and traveling and feeling shitty about being an absentee parent and partner.

      • By seydor 2025-05-3111:12

        Most of the people are leisuring af work (for keynes era standards) and also getting paid for it

      • By onlyrealcuzzo 2025-06-0214:37

        > Keynes suggested that by 2030, we’d be working 15 hour workweeks, with the rest of the time used for leisure.

        I suspect he didn't factor in how may people would be retired and on entitlements.

        We're not SUPER far from that now, when you factor in how much more time off the average person has now, how much larger of percentage of the population is retired, and how much of a percentage is on entitlements.

        The distribution is just very unequal.

        I.E. if you're the median worker, you've probably seen almost no benefit, but if you're old or on entitlements, you've seen a lot of benefits.

      • By JumpCrisscross 2025-05-3116:511 reply

        > Keynes suggested that by 2030, we’d be working 15 hour workweeks

        Most people with a modest retirement account could retire in their forties to working 15-hour workweeks somewhere in rural America.

        • By steveBK123 2025-05-3117:031 reply

          The trade is you need to live in VHCOL city to earn enough and have a high savings rate. Avoid spending it all on VHCOL real estate.

          And then after living at the center of everything for 15-20 years be mentally prepared to move to “nowhere”, possibly before your kids head off to college.

          Most cannot meet all those conditions and end up on the hedonic treadmill.

          • By JumpCrisscross 2025-05-3121:431 reply

            > you need to live in VHCOL city to earn enough and have a high savings rate

            Yes to the latter, no to the former. The states with the highest savings rates are Connecticut, New Jersey, Minnesota, Massachussetts and Maryland [1]. Only Massachussetts is a top-five COL state [2].

            > then after living at the center of everything for 15-20 years be mentally prepared to move to “nowhere”

            This is the real hurdle. Ultimately, however, it's a choice. One chooses to work harder to access a scarce resource out of preference, not necessity.

            [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_savings...

            [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_savings...

            • By steveBK123 2025-06-0211:51

              CT & NJ being top of the list points to the great NYC metropolitan wage premium though doesn't it? MA at #4 picks up Boston, MD at #5 picks up DC, etc.

              CA probably nowhere on the list because its such a small state that any Silicon Valley premium gets diluted at the state level average.

              I am not finding a clear definition of this index but it appears to be $saved/$income (or $saved/$living expenses) right? So 114% in CT dollars is probably way more than 102% Kansas dollars..

              It's also worth noting the point I was making is - if you take a "one years NYC income in savings" amount of money and relocate to say, New Mexico.. the money goes a lot further than trying to do the opposite!

      • By davedx 2025-05-319:07

        Some countries are still trending in that direction:

        https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/21/icelan...

        Policy matters

      • By runeks 2025-06-0213:35

        Keynes also convinced us that high unemployment and high inflation couldn't happen at the same time. This was proven wrong in the early 1970s.

      • By laughing_man 2025-06-017:21

        It's more likely 15% of the workforce will have jobs. They'll be working eighty hour weeks and making just enough to keep them from leaving.

      • By raincom 2025-05-3119:19

        Now one has to work 60 hours to afford housing(rent/mortgage) and insurance (health, home, automotive). Yes, food is cheap if one can cook.

      • By WorkerBee28474 2025-06-012:35

        > Keynes suggested that by 2030, we’d be working 15 hour workweeks

        Yeah, I'd say I get up to 15 hours of work done in a 40 hour workweek.

      • By gosub100 2025-05-3117:14

        > Instead, we chose consumption

        instead, corporations chose to consume us

      • By latentsea 2025-06-0122:18

        It's still not 2030 yet. It could still happen.

      • By SarahC_ 2025-05-318:074 reply

        "Bullshit jobs" are the rubbish required to keep the paperwork tidy, assessed and filed. No company pays someone to do -nothing-.

        AI isn't going to generate those jobs, it's going to automate them.

        ALL our bullshit jobs are going away, and those people will be unemployed.

        • By tim333 2025-05-3110:182 reply

          I foresee programers replaced by AI and the people who programed becoming pointy haired bosses to the AI.

          • By dgfitz 2025-05-3111:002 reply

            I for see that when people only employ AI for programming, it quickly hits the point where they train on their own (usually wrong) code and it spirals into an implosion.

            When kids stop learning to code for real, who writes GCC v38?

            This whole LLM is just the next bitcoin/nft. People had a lot of video cards and wanted to find a new use for them. In my small brain it’s so obvious.

            • By nhod 2025-05-3119:381 reply

              i dunno, i have gotten tons of real work done with LLM’s. i just had o3 edit a contract and swap out pieces of it to make it work with SOW’s instead of embed the terms directly in the contract. i used to have to do that myself and have a lawyer review it. (i’ve been working with contracts for 30 years, i know enough now to know most basic contract law even though IANAL.) i’ve vibe coded a whole bunch of little things i would never have done myself or hired someone to do. i have had them extract data in seconds that would have taken forever. there is without question real utility in LLM’s and they are also without question getting better very fast.

              to compare that to NFT’s is pretty disingenuous. i don’t know anyone who has ever accomplished anything with an NFT. (i’m happy to be wrong about that, and i have yet to find a single example).

              • By dgfitz 2025-05-3122:54

                There is without question value to LLMs, I absolutely agree.

                Trying to make them more than they are is the issue I have. Let them be great at crunching words, I’m all about that.

                Pretending that OpenAI is worth billions of dollars is a joke, when I can get 90% of the value the provide for free, on my own mediocre hardware.

            • By tim333 2025-05-3111:591 reply

              LLMs maybe but there will be other algorithms.

              • By dgfitz 2025-05-3117:46

                For sure, same point though.

          • By hansmayer 2025-05-3111:102 reply

            Ha-ha, this is very funny :) Say, have you ever tried seriously using the AI-tools for programming? Because if you do, and still believe this, I may have a bridge/Eiffel Tower/railroad to sell you.

            • By vidarh 2025-05-3116:322 reply

              The majority of my code over theast few months has been written by LLMs. Including systems I rely on for my business daily.

              Maybe consider it's not all on the AI tools if they work for others but not for you.

              • By hansmayer 2025-05-3117:181 reply

                Sure man, maybe also share that bit with your clients and see how excited they'll be to learn their vital code or infrastructure may be designed by a stochastical system (*reliable a solid number of times).

              • By Lu2025 2025-06-011:32

                > written by LLMs

                Writing code is often easier than reading it. I suspect that coders soon will face what translators face now: fixing machine output at 2x to 3x less pay.

            • By tim333 2025-05-3111:58

              I tried and they weren't that good. I'm gazing into the future a little.

        • By antonvs 2025-05-3111:01

          > "Bullshit jobs" are the rubbish required to keep the paperwork tidy, assessed and filed.

          It's also the jobs that involve keeping people happy somehow, which may not be "productive" in the most direct sense.

          One class of people that needs to be kept happy are managers. What makes managers happy is not always what is actually most productive. What makes managers happy is their perception of what's most productive, or having their ideas about how to solve some problem addressed.

          This does, in fact, result in companies paying people to do nothing useful. People get paid to do things that satisfy a need that managers have perceived.

        • By r0s 2025-05-3117:44

          AI is going to 10x the amount of bullshit, fully automating the process.

          NONE of the bullshit jobs are going away, there will simply be bigger, more numerous bullshit.

      • By pmlnr 2025-05-315:164 reply

        Keynes was talking about work in every sense,including house chore. We're well below 15 hours of house chores by now, so that part became true.

        • By LeonB 2025-05-317:313 reply

          Washing machines created a revolution where we could now expend 1/10th of the human labour to wash the same amount of clothes as before. We now have more than 10 times as much clothes to wash.

          I don’t know if it’s induced demand, revealed preference or Jevon’s paradox, maybe all 3.

          • By B1FF_PSUVM 2025-05-3119:54

            > We now have more than 10 times as much clothes to wash.

            OK, but I doubt we're washing 10 times as much clothes, unless are people wearing them for one hour between washes...

          • By jjk166 2025-05-3123:15

            > We now have more than 10 times as much clothes to wash.

            Citation needed.

          • By tim333 2025-05-3110:202 reply

            I saw some research once that the hours women spend doing housework hasn't changed. I think because human nature, not anything to do with the tech.

            • By AuryGlenz 2025-06-014:502 reply

              That's nonsense. It used to take women a full workday per week just to wash clothes.

            • By Lu2025 2025-06-011:35

              [flagged]

        • By itishappy 2025-05-315:31

          We've got 10 whole hours left over for "actual" work!

          (Quotes because I personally have a significantly harder time doing bloody housework...)

        • By leoedin 2025-05-316:302 reply

          Clearly you don’t have children!

          • By antonvs 2025-05-3111:011 reply

            Life pro tip: teach your children to do chores.

            • By aleph_minus_one 2025-05-3123:501 reply

              > Life pro tip: teach your children to do chores.

              Before teaching your children to do chores: x hours per week for chores

              After teaching your children to do chores: y hours per weeks to have annoying discussions with the child, and X hours per week cautioning the children to do the chores, and ensuring that your children do the chore properly. Here X > x.

              Additional time for you: -((X-x)+y), where X>x and additionally y > 0.

              • By nrclark 2025-06-0110:44

                I did a lot of chores growing up. Looking back, X>x was true for the first few months of each new chore; but X died down to zero as time went on.

          • By tim333 2025-05-3110:241 reply

            I was thinking it's a function of the social setting. Single bloke 1h/week. Couple 5h/week. With kids continuous. Or some such.

            • By leoedin 2025-05-3111:50

              I imagine standards have also shifted. It just wouldn’t have been possible to wash a child’s clothes after one wear before the invention of the washing machine. People also had far less clothing that they could have even needed to wash.

        • By autobodie 2025-05-315:231 reply

          Source? Keynes was a serious economist, not a charlitan futurist.

          • By itishappy 2025-05-315:39

            John Maynard Keynes (1930) - Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren

            > For many ages to come the old Adam will be so strong in us that everybody will need to do some work if he is to be contented. We shall do more things for ourselves than is usual with the rich to-day, only too glad to have small duties and tasks and routines. But beyond this, we shall endeavour to spread the bread thin on the butter-to make what work there is still to be done to be as widely shared as possible. Three-hour shifts or a fifteen-hour week may put off the problem for a great while. For three hours a day is quite enough to satisfy the old Adam in most of us!

            http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf

            https://www.aspeninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/files/cont...

    • By hombre_fatal 2025-05-3116:521 reply

      Why would you interpret data cut off at 2020 so that you're just looking at a covid phenomenon? The buttons don't seem to do anything on that site, but why not consider 2010-2025?

      That said, the vibe has definitely shifted. I started working in software in uni ~2009 and every job I've had, I'd applied for <10 positions and got a couple offers. Now, I barely get responses despite 10x the skills and experience I had back then.

      Though I don't think AI has anything to do with it, probably more the explosion of cheap software labor on the global market, and you have to compete with the whole world for a job in your own city.

      Kinda feels like some major part of the gravy train is up.

      • By lbotos 2025-05-3116:571 reply

        It looks like that specific graph only starts in 2020...

        • By hombre_fatal 2025-05-3117:09

          Why not just find one that starts in 2022 then. It would look even more dire.

    • By digitcatphd 2025-05-313:5213 reply

      As of now yes. But we are still in day 0.1 of GenAI. Do you think this will be the case when o3 models are 10x better and 100x cheaper? There will be a turning point but it’s not happened yet.

      • By godelski 2025-05-317:047 reply

        Yet we're what? 5 years into "AI will replace programmers in 6 months"?

        10 years into "we'll have self driving cars next year"

        We're 10 years into "it's just completely obvious that within 5 years deep learning is going to replace radiologists"

        Moravec's paradox strikes again and again. But this time it's different and it's completely obvious now, right?

        • By hn_throwaway_99 2025-05-319:543 reply

          I basically agree with you, and I think the thing that is missing from a bunch of responses that disagree is that it seems fairly apparent now that AI has largely hit a brick wall in terms of the benefits of scaling. That is, most folks were pretty astounded by the gains you could get from just stuffing more training data into these models, but like someone who argues a 15 year old will be 50 feet tall based on the last 5 years' growth rate, people who are still arguing that past growth rates will continue apace don't seem to be honest (or aware) to me.

          I'm not at all saying that it's impossible some improvement will be discovered in the future that allows AI progress to continue at a breakneck speed, but I am saying that the "progress will only accelerate" conclusion, based primarily on the progress since 2017 or so, is faulty reasoning.

          • By godelski 2025-05-3110:293 reply

              > it seems fairly apparent now that AI has largely hit a brick wall in terms of the benefits of scaling
            
            What's annoying is plenty of us (researchers) predicted this and got laughed at. Now that it's happening, it's just quiet.

            I don't know about the rest, but I spoke up because I didn't want to hit a brick wall, I want to keep going! I still want to keep going! But if accurate predictions (with good explanations) aren't a reason to shift resource allocation then we just keep making the same mistake over and over. We let the conmen come in and people who get too excited by success that they get blind to pitfalls.

            And hey, I'm not saying give me money. This account is (mostly) anonymous. There's plenty of people that made accurate predictions and tried working in other directions but never got funding to test how methods scale up. We say there's no alternatives but there's been nothing else that's been given a tenth of the effort. Apples and oranges...

            • By antonvs 2025-05-3111:063 reply

              > What's annoying is plenty of us (researchers) predicted this and got laughed at. Now that it's happening, it's just quiet.

              You need to model the business world and management more like a flock of sheep being herded by forces that mostly don't have to do with what actually is going to happen in future. It makes a lot more sense.

              • By godelski 2025-05-3117:26

                  > mostly don't have to do with what actually is going to happen
                
                Yet I'm talking about what did happen.

                I'm saying we should have memory. Look at predictions people make. Reward accurate ones, don't reward failures. Right now we reward whoever makes the craziest predictions. It hasn't always been this way, so we should go back to less crazy

              • By cgio 2025-05-3112:33

                Practically no one is herded by what is actually going to happen, hardly even by what is expected to happen. Business pretends that it is driven by expectations, but is mostly driven by the past, as in financial statements. What is the bonus we can get this year? There is of course the strategic thinking, I don't want to discount that part of business, but it is not the thing that will drive most of these, AI as a cost saving measure, decisions. This is the unimaginative part of AI application and as such relegated to the unimaginative managers.

              • By johnnyanmac 2025-05-3113:11

                > It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

                It's all a big hype bubble and not only is no one in the industry willing to pop it, they actively defend against popping a bubble that is clearly rupturing on its own. It's endemic of how modern businesses no longer care about a proper 10 year portfolio and more about how to make the next quarter look good.

                There's just no skin in the game, and everyone's ransacking before the inevitable fire instead of figuring out how to prevent the fire to begin with.

            • By oblio 2025-05-3119:38

              > What's annoying is plenty of us (researchers) predicted this and got laughed at. Now that it's happening, it's just quiet.

              Those people always do that. Shouting about cryptocurrencies and NFTs from the rooftops 3-4 years ago, now completely gone.

              I suspect they're the same people, basically get rich quick schemers.

            • By brrt 2025-05-3114:101 reply

              Sure, you were right.

              But if you had been wrong and we would now have had superintelligence, the upside for its owners would presumably be great.

              ... Or at least that's the hypothesis. As a matter of fact intelligence is only somewhat useful in the real world :-)

              • By generic92034 2025-05-3121:14

                I am not sure the owners would keep being that in case of real superintelligence, though.

          • By HDThoreaun 2025-05-3113:142 reply

            I dont see any wall. Gemini 2.5 and o3/o4 are incredible improvements. Gen AI is miles ahead of where it was a year ago which was miles ahead of where it was 2 years ago.

            • By dismalaf 2025-05-3122:111 reply

              The actual LLM part isn't much better than a year ago. What's better is that they've added additional logic and made it possible to intertwine traditional, expert-system style AI plus the power of the internet to augment LLMs so that they're actually useful.

              This is an improvement for sure, but LLMs themselves are definitely hitting a wall. It was predicted that scaling alone would allow them to reach AGI level.

            • By asadotzler 2025-05-3120:031 reply

              The improvements have less to do with scaling than adding new techniques like better fine tuning and reinforcement learning. The infinite scaling we were promised, that only required more content and more compute to reach god tier has indeed hit a wall.

              • By munksbeer 2025-06-028:471 reply

                I probably wasn't paying enough attention, but I don't remember that being the dominating claim that you're suggesting. Infinite scaling?

          • By mark_l_watson 2025-05-3113:40

            I basically agree with you also, but I have a somewhat contrarian view of scaling -> brick wall. I feel like applications of powerful local models is stagnating, perhaps because Apple has not done a good job so far with Apple Intelligence.

            A year ago I expected a golden age of local model intelligence integrated into most software tools, and more powerful commercial tools like Google Jules to be something used perhaps 2 or 3 times a week for specific difficult tasks.

            That said, my view of the future is probably now wrong, I am just saying what I expected.

        • By jjani 2025-05-317:451 reply

          > Yet we're what? 5 years into "AI will replace programmers in 6 months"?

          Realistically, we're 2.5 years into it at most.

          • By hansmayer 2025-05-3112:193 reply

            No, the hype cycle started around 2019, slowly at first. The technology this is built with is more like 20 years old, so no, we are not 2.5 years at most really.

            • By jjani 2025-06-015:39

              If you can quote anyone well-known saying we'd be replacing programmers in 6 months back in 2019, I'd be interested to read it.

            • By woke_ai_god 2025-06-080:43

              Neural networks go back a lot further than 20 years ago. It was considered a research dead end for a long time though.

            • By micromacrofoot 2025-05-3112:451 reply

              we're 2.5 years into the current hype trend, no way was this mainstream until at least 2022

        • By tim333 2025-05-319:315 reply

          Four years into people mocking "we'll have self driving cars next year" while they are on the street daily driving around SF.

          • By xorcist 2025-05-3112:111 reply

            They are self driving the same way a tram or subway can be self driving. They traffic a tightly bounded designated area. They're not competing with human drivers. Still a marvel of human engineering, just quite expensive compared with other forms of public transport. It just doesn't compete in the same space and likely never will.

            • By tim333 2025-05-3114:502 reply

              They are literally competing with human uber drivers in the area they operate and also having a much lower crash and injury rate.

              I admit they don't operate everywhere - only certain routes. Still they are undoubtedly cars that drive themselves.

              I imagine it'll be the same with AGI. We'll have robots / AIs that are much smarter than the average human and people will be saying they don't count because humans win X Factor or something.

          • By hansvm 2025-05-3112:53

            They're driving, but not well in my (limited) interactions with them. I had a waymo run me completely out of my lane a couple months ago as it interpreted 2 lanes of left turn as an extra wide lane instead (or, worse, changed lanes during the turn without a blinker or checking its sensors, though that seems unlikely).

          • By HarHarVeryFunny 2025-05-3113:093 reply

            Yes, but ...

            The argument that self-driving cars should be allowed on public roads as long as they are statistically as safe as human drivers (on average) seems valid, but of course none of these cars have AGI... they perform well in the anticipated simulator conditions in which they were trained (as long as they have the necessary sensors, e.g. Waymo's lidar, to read the environment in reliable fashion), but will not perform well in emergency/unanticipated conditions they were not trained on. Even outside of emergencies, Waymos still sometimes need to "phone home" for remote assistance in knowing what to do.

            So, yes, they are out there, perhaps as safe on average as a human (I'd be interested to see a breakdown of the stats), but I'd not personally be comfortable riding in one since I'm not senile, drunk, teenager, hothead, distracted (using phone while driving), etc - not part of the class that are dragging the human safety stats down. I'd also not trust a Tesla where penny pinching, or just arrogant stupidity, has resulted in a sensor-poor design liable to failure modes like running into parked trucks.

            • By jkestner 2025-05-3114:011 reply

                I'd not personally be comfortable riding in one since I'm not senile, drunk, teenager, hothead, distracted (using phone while driving), etc - not part of the class that are dragging the human safety stats down.
              
              The challenge is that most people think they’re better than average drivers.

            • By johnnyanmac 2025-05-3113:151 reply

              In my lens, as long as companies don't want to be held liable for an accident, the shouldn't be on roads. They need to be extremely confident to the point of putting their money where their mouths are. That's true "safety".

              That's the main difference with a human driver. If I take an Uber and we crash, that driver is liable. Waymo would fight tooth and nail to blame anything else.

            • By tim333 2025-06-0111:08

              Well, it depends on the details. I'd trust a Waymo as much as an Uber but I'm pretty skeptical of the Tesla stuff they are launching in Austin.

          • By godelski 2025-05-3110:361 reply

            I'm quoting Elon.

            I don't care about SF. I care about what I can but as a typical American. Not as an enthusiast in one of the most technologically advanced cities on the planet

        • By roenxi 2025-05-318:484 reply

          As far as I've seen we appear to already have self driving vehicles, the main barriers are legal and regulatory concerns rather than the tech. If a company wanted to put a car on the road that beetles around by itself there aren't any crazy technical challenges to doing that - the issue is even if it was safer than a human driver the company would have a lot of liability problems.

          • By RivieraKid 2025-05-319:40

            This is just not true, Waymo, MobilEye, Tesla and Chinese companies are not bottlenecked by regulations but by high failure rate and / or economics.

          • By risyachka 2025-05-3110:47

            They are only self-driving in a very controlled environments of few very good mapped out cities with good roads in good weather.

            And it took what like 2 decades to get there. So no, we don't have self-driving even close. Those examples look more like hard-coded solution for custom test cases.

          • By jeffreygoesto 2025-05-319:42

            What? If that stuff works, no liability will have to be executed. How can you state that it works and claim liability problems at the same time?

          • By apwell23 2025-05-319:221 reply

            > the main barriers are legal and regulatory concerns rather than the tech

            they have failed in sfo, phoenix and other cities that rolled red carpet for them

            • By roenxi 2025-05-319:334 reply

              Pretty solid evidence that self driving cars already exist though.

        • By hansmayer 2025-05-3112:18

          100% this. I always argue that groundbreaking technologies are clearly groundbreaking from the start. It is almost a bit like a film, if you have to struggle to get into it in the first few minutes, you may as well spare yourself watching the rest.

        • By tsunamifury 2025-05-317:145 reply

          [flagged]

          • By seanhunter 2025-05-318:312 reply

            I consulted a radiologist more than 5 years after Hinton said that it was completely obvious that radiologists would be replaced by AI in 5 years. I strongly suspect they were not an AI.

            Why do I think this?

            1) They smelled slightly funny. 2) They got the diagnosis wrong.

            OK maybe #2 is a red herring. But I stand by the other reason.

            • By HDThoreaun 2025-05-3113:171 reply

              I know a radiologist and talk a decent bit about AI usage in the field. Every radiologist today is making heavy use of AI. They pre screen everything and from what I understand it has led to massive productivity gains. It hasnt led to job losses yet but theres so much money on the line it really feels to me like we're just waiting for the straw that broke the camels back. No one wants to be the first to fully get rid of radiologists but once one hospital does the rest will quickly follow suit.

            • By fulafel 2025-05-3115:05

              The quote appears to be “We should stop training radiologists now, it’s just completely obvious within five years deep learning is going to do better than radiologists.”

              So there's some room for interpretation, the weaker interpretation is less radical (that AI could beat humans in radiology tasks in 5 years).

          • By godelski 2025-05-317:29

            I named 3 things...

            You're going to have to specify which 2 you think happened

          • By hengheng 2025-05-318:471 reply

            I have a fusion reactor to sell to you.

          • By croes 2025-05-317:19

            Where did it happen?

            They try it, but it’s not reliable

          • By apwell23 2025-05-319:23

            did you by any chance send money to nigerian prince ?

        • By gardenhedge 2025-05-3112:58

          Over ten years for the we'll have self driving car spiel

      • By directevolve 2025-05-315:592 reply

        We’re already heading toward the sigmoid plateau. The GPT 3 to 4 shift was massive. Nothing since had touched that. I could easily go back to the models I was using 1-2 years ago with little impact on my work.

        I don’t use RAG, and have no doubt the infrastructure for integrating AI into a large codebase has improved. But the base model powering the whole operation seems stuck.

        • By threeseed 2025-05-316:171 reply

          > I don’t use RAG, and have no doubt the infrastructure for integrating AI into a large codebase has improved

          It really hasn't.

          The problem is that a GenAI system needs to not only understand the large codebase but also the latest stable version of every transitive dependency it depends on. Which is typically in the order of hundreds or thousands.

          Having it build a component with 10 year old, deprecated, CVE-riddled libraries is of limited use especially when libraries tend to be upgraded in interconnected waves. And so that component will likely not even work anyway.

          I was assured that MCP was going to solve all of this but nope.

          • By HumanOstrich 2025-05-317:121 reply

            How did you think MCP was going to solve the issue of a large number of outdated dependencies?

            • By threeseed 2025-05-317:41

              Those large number of outdated dependencies are in the LLM "index" which can't be rapidly refreshed because of the training costs.

              MCP would allow it to instead get this information at run-time from language servers, dependency repositories etc. But it hasn't proven to be effective.

        • By chrsw 2025-05-3114:311 reply

          > I could easily go back to the models I was using 1-2 years ago with little impact on my work.

          I can't. GPT-4 was useless for me for software development. Claude 4 is not.

          • By directevolve 2025-05-3116:411 reply

            Interesting, what type of dev work do you do? Performance does vary widely across languages and domains.

            • By chrsw 2025-05-3117:07

              Embedded software for robotics.

      • By solumunus 2025-05-318:431 reply

        I use LLM’s daily and live them but at the current rate of progress it’s just not really something worth worrying about. Those that are hysterical about AI seem to think LLM’s are getting exponentially better when in fact diminishing returns are hitting hard. Could some new innovation change that? It’s possible but it’s not inevitable or at least not necessarily imminent.

        • By kbelder 2025-05-3120:32

          I agree that the core models are only going to see slow progression from here on out, until something revolutionary happens... which might be a year from now, or maybe twenty years. Who knows.

          But we are going to see a huge explosion in how those models are integrated into the rest of the tech ecosystem. Things that a current model could do right now, if only your car/watch/videogame/heart monitor/stuffed animal had a good working interface into an AI.

          Not necessarily looking forward to that, but that's where the growth will come.

      • By threeseed 2025-05-316:121 reply

        How are we in 0.1 of GenAI ? It's been developed for nearly a decade now.

        And each successive model that has been released has done nothing to fundamentally change the use cases that the technology can be applied to i.e. those which are tolerant of a large percentage of incoherent mistakes. Which isn't all that many.

        So you can keep your 10x better and 100x cheaper models because they are of limited usefulness let alone being a turning point for anything.

        • By Flemlo 2025-05-316:363 reply

          A decade?

          The explosion of funding, awareness etc only happened after gpt-3 launch

          • By hyperadvanced 2025-05-318:12

            Funding is behind the curve. Social networks existed in 2003 and Facebook became a billion dollar company a decade later. AI horror fantasies from the 90’s still haven’t come true. There is no god, there is no Skynet.

          • By sbm_au 2025-06-010:10

            AlphaGo beating the top human player was in 2016. To my memory, that was one of the first public breakthroughs of the new era of machine learning.

            Around 2010 when I was at university, a friend did their undergraduate thesis on neural networks. Among our cohort it was seen as a weird choice and a bit of a dead-end from the last AI winter.

          • By imtringued 2025-05-318:241 reply

            That was five years ago not yesterday.

            • By Flemlo 2025-05-319:06

              I didn't say yesterday.

              Nonetheless it took openai til Nov 2022 for 1 Million users.

              The overall awareness and breakthrough was probably not at 2020.

      • By nothercastle 2025-05-314:31

        I think they will be 10-100x cheaper id be really surprised if we even doubled the quality though

      • By makeitdouble 2025-05-314:52

        How does it work if they get 10x better in 10 years ? Everything else will have already moved on and the actual technology shift will come from elsewhere.

        Basically, what if GenAI is the Minitel and what we want is the internet.

      • By nradov 2025-05-314:002 reply

        10× better by what metric? Progress on LLMs has been amazing but already appears to be slowing down.

        • By jaggederest 2025-05-315:181 reply

          All these folks are once again seeing the first 1/4 of a sigmoid curve and extrapolating to infinity.

          • By drodgers 2025-05-315:415 reply

            No doubt from me that it’s a sigmoid, but how high is the plateau? That’s also hard to know from early in the process, but it would be surprising if there’s not a fair bit of progress left to go.

            Human brains seem like an existence proof for what’s possible, but it would be surprising if humans also represent the farthest physical limits of what’s technologically possible without the constraints of biology (hip size, energy budget etc).

            • By leoedin 2025-05-316:271 reply

              Biological muscles are proof that you can make incredibly small and forceful actuators. But the state of robotics is nowhere near them, because the fundamental construction of every robotic actuator is completely different.

              We’ve been building actuators for 100s of years and we still haven’t got anything comparable to a muscle. And even if you build a better hydraulic ram or brushless motor driven linear actuator you will still never achieve the same kind of behaviour, because the technologies are fundamentally different.

              I don’t know where the ceiling of LLM performance will be, but as the building blocks are fundamentally different to those of biological computers, it seems unlikely that the limits will be in any way linked to those of the human brain. In much the same way the best hydraulic ram has completely different qualities to a human arm. In some dimensions it’s many orders of magnitudes better, but in others it’s much much worse.

            • By audunw 2025-05-316:45

              I don’t think it’s hard to know. We’re already seeing several signs of being near the plateau in terms of capabilities. Most big breakthrough these days seems to be in areas where we haven’t spent the effort in training and model engineering. Like recent improvements in video generation. So of course we could get improvements in areas where we haven’t tried to use ML yet.

              For text generation, it seems like the fast progress was mainly due to feeding the models exponentially more data and exponentially more compute power. But we know that the growth in data is over. The growth in compute has a shifted from a steep curve (just buy more chips) to a slow curve (have to make exponentially more factories if we want exponentially more chips)

              Im sure we will have big improvements in efficiency. Im sure nearly everyone will use good LLMs to support them in their work, and they may even be able to do all they need to do on-device. But that doesn’t make the models significantly smarter.

            • By jaggederest 2025-05-316:51

              The wonderful thing about a sigmoid is that, just as it seems like it's going exponential, it goes back to linear. So I'd guess we're not going to see 1000x from here - I could be wrong, but I think the low hanging fruit has been picked. I would be surprised in 10 years if AI were 100x better than it is now (per watt, maybe, since energy devoted to computing is essentially the limiting factor)

              The thing about the latter 1/3rd of a sigmoid curve is, you're still making good progress, it's just not easy any more. The returns have begun to diminish, and I do think you could argue that's already happening for LLMs.

            • By formerly_proven 2025-05-319:25

              Progress so far has been half and half technique and brute force. Overall technique has now settled for a few years, so that's mostly in the tweaking phase. Brute force doesn't scale by itself and semiconductors have been running into a wall for the last few years. Those (plus stagnating outcomes) seem decent reasons to suspect the plateau is neigh.

            • By GoblinSlayer 2025-05-317:15

              Human brains are easy to do, just run evolution for neural networks.

        • By elif 2025-05-315:272 reply

          with autonomous vehicles, the narrative of imperceptibly slow incremental change about chasing 9's is still the zeitgeist despite an actual 10x improvement in homicidality compared to humans already existing.

          There is a lag in how humans are reacting to AI which is probably a reflexive aspect of human nature. There are so many strategies being employed to minimize progress in a technology which 3 years ago did not exist and now represents a frontier of countless individual disciplines.

          • By intended 2025-05-315:404 reply

            This is my favorite thing to point out from the day we started talking about autonomous vehicles on tech sites.

            If you took a Tesla or a Waymo and dropped into into a tier 2 city in India, it will stop moving.

            Driving data is cultural data, not data about pure physics.

            You will never get to full self driving, even with more processing power, because the underlying assumptions are incorrect. Doing more of the same thing, will not achieve the stated goal of full self driving.

            You would need to have something like networked driving, or government supported networks of driving information, to deal with the cultural factor.

            Same with GenAI - the tooling factor will not magically solve the people, process, power and economic factors.

            • By yusina 2025-05-317:05

              > You would need to have something like networked driving, or government supported networks of driving information, to deal with the cultural factor.

              Or actual intelligence. That observes its surroundings and learns what's going on. That can solve generic problems. Which is the definition of intelligence. One of the obvious proofs that what everybody is calling "AI" is fundamentally not intelligent, so it's a blatant misnomer.

            • By binoct 2025-05-316:072 reply

              One of my favorite things to question about autonomous driving is the goalposts. What do you mean the “stated goal of full self driving”, which is unachievable? Any vehicle, anywhere in the world, in any conditions? That seems an absurd goal that ignores the very real value in having vehicles that do not require drivers and are safer than humans but are limited to certain regions.

              Absolutely driving is cultural (all things people do are cultural) but given 10’s of millions of miles driven by Waymo, clearly it has managed the cultural factor in the places they have been deployed. Modern autonomous driving is about how people drive far more than the rules of the road, even on the highly regulated streets of western countries. Absolutely the constraints of driving in Chennai are different, but what is fundamentally different? What leads to an impossible leap in processing power to operate there?

            • By atleastoptimal 2025-05-316:152 reply

              Why couldn’t an autonomous vehicle adapt to different cultures? American driving culture has specific qualities and elements to learn, same with India or any other country.

              Do you really think Waymos in SF operate solely on physics? There are volumes of data on driver behavior, when to pass, change lanes, react to aggressive drivers, etc.

              • By huntertwo 2025-05-3112:40

                Yeah exactly. It’s kind of absurd to take the position that it’s impossible to have “full self driving” because Indian driving is different than American driving. You can just change the model you’re using. You can have the model learn on the fly. There are so many possibilities.

              • By intended 2025-05-3112:391 reply

                Because this statement, unfortunately, ends up moving the underlying goal posts about what self driving IS.

                And the point that I am making, is that this view was never baked into the original vision of self driving, resulting in predictions of a velocity that was simply impossible.

                Physical reality does not have vibes, and is more amenable to prediction, than human behavior. Or Cow behavior, or wildlife if I were to include some other places.

            • By gwicks56 2025-05-3112:17

              "If you took a Tesla or a Waymo and dropped into into a tier 2 city in India, it will stop moving."

              Lol. If you dropped the average westerner into Chennai, they would either: a) stop moving b) kill someone

          • By yusina 2025-05-317:02

            > a technology which 3 years ago did not exist

            Decades of machine learning research would like to have a word.

      • By ricardobayes 2025-05-316:092 reply

        Frankly, we don't know. That "turning point" that seemed so close for many tech, never came for some of them. Think 3D-printing that was supposed to take over manufacturing. Or self-driving, that is "just around the corner" for a decade now. And still is probably a decade away. Only time will tell if GenAI/LLMs are color TV or 3D TV.

        • By kergonath 2025-05-316:381 reply

          > Think 3D-printing that was supposed to take over manufacturing.

          3D printing is making huge progress in heavy industries. It’s not sexy and does not make headlines but it absolutely is happening. It won’t replace traditional manufacturing at huge scales (either large pieces or very high throughput). But it’s bringing costs way down for fiddly parts or replacements. It is also affecting designs, which can be made simpler by using complex pieces that cannot be produced otherwise. It is not taking over, because it is not a silver bullet, but it is now indispensable in several industries.

          • By godelski 2025-05-317:24

            You're misunderstanding the parent's complaint and frankly the complaints with AI. Certainly 3D printing is powerful and hasn't changed things. But you forgot that 30 years ago people were saying there would be one in every house because a printer can print a printer and how this would revolutionize everything because you could just print anything at home.

            The same thing with AI. You'd be blind or lying if you said it hasn't advanced a lot. People aren't denying that. But people are fed up being constantly being promised the moon and getting a cheap plastic replica instead.

            The tech is rapidly advancing and doing good. But it just can't keep up with the bubble of hype. That's the problem. The hype, not the tech.

            Frankly, the hype harms the tech too. We can't solve problems with the tech if we're just throwing most of our money at vaporware. I'm upset with the hype BECAUSE I like the tech.

            So don't confuse the difference. Make sure you understand what you're arguing against. Because it sounds like we should be on the same team, not arguing against one another. That just helps the people selling vaporware

        • By Ray20 2025-05-3123:031 reply

          >Think 3D-printing that was supposed to take over manufacturing

          This was never the case, and this is obvious to anyone who has ever been to factories that doing mass-produced plastic

          >Or self-driving, that is "just around the corner" for a decade now.

          But it is really around the corner, all that remains is to accept it. That is, to start building and modifying the road infrastructure and changing the traffic rules to enable effective integration self-driving cars into road traffic.

          • By arthurbrown 2025-06-011:59

            What modifications to infrastructure are you anticipating needing?

      • By xnx 2025-05-3122:431 reply

        > 5 years into "AI will replace programmers in 6 months"?

        Programmers that don't use AI will get replaced by those that do. (no just by mandate, but by performance)

        > 10 years into "we'll have self driving cars next year"

        They're here now. Waymo does 250K paid rides/week.

        • By player1234 2025-06-047:45

          How have you measured this performance boost?

      • By johnnyanmac 2025-05-3113:02

        There's a lot of "when" people are betting on, and not a lot of action to back it. If "when" is 20 years, then I still got plenty career ahead of me before I need to worry about that.

      • By AvAn12 2025-05-3112:211 reply

        Remember when RPA was going to replace everyone?

        • By AvAn12 2025-05-3112:21

          Or low-code / no-code?

      • By croes 2025-05-317:18

        If not when.

      • By apwell23 2025-05-316:08

        > Do you think this will be the case when o3 models are 10x better and 100x cheaper?

        why don't you bring it up then.

        > There will be a turning point but it’s not happened yet.

        do you know something that rest of us don't ?

    • By fallingknife 2025-05-3114:24

      ZIRP had little to do with it. Tech is less levered than any other major industry. What happened is that growth expectations for large tech companies were way out of line with reality and finally came back down to earth when the market finally realized that the big tech cos are actually mature profitable companies and not just big startups. The fact that this happened at the same time ZIRP ended is a coincidence.

    • By wonderwonder 2025-06-010:471 reply

      Saw something similar the other day. X was awash with stories that IBM was laying off several thousand people in their HR dept. being let go due to Ai. Then over the course of the day the story shifted to IBM was outsourcing them all to India. Was a very interesting transition, seemed intentional.

      • By Lu2025 2025-06-010:54

        IBM seemed to outsource recruiting to Indian firms too and it's awful. The accounts who contact me on LinkedIn are grossly unprofessional and downright nasty.

    • By xorcist 2025-05-3112:041 reply

      > because he simply thought he could run a lot leaner

      Because he suddenly had to pay interest on that gigantic loan he (and his business associates) took to buy Twitter.

      It may not be the only reason for everything that happened, but it sure is simple and has some very good explanatory powers.

      • By huntertwo 2025-05-3112:291 reply

        Other companies have different reasons to cut costs, but the incentive is still there.

        • By xorcist 2025-05-3113:03

          Stocks are valued against the risk free interest, or so the saying goes.

          Doubling interest rate from .1% to .2% does a lot for your DCF models, and in this case we went from zero (or in some cases negative) to several percentage units. Of course stock prices tanked. That's what any schoolbook will tell you, and that's what any investor will expect.

          Companies thus have to start turning dials and adjust parameters to make number go up again.

    • By niuzeta 2025-05-3119:171 reply

      FRED continues to amaze me with the kind of data they have availab.e

      • By brfox 2025-05-3120:362 reply

        That's from Indeed. And, Indeed has fewer job postings overall [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/IHLIDXUS]. Should we normalize the software jobs with the total number of Indeed postings? Is Indeed getting less popular or more popular over this time period? Data is complicated

        • By simonsarris 2025-05-3122:58

          Look at that graph again. It's indexed to 100 in Feb 1, 2020. It's now at 106. In other words, after all the pandemic madness, the total number of job postings on indeed is slightly larger than it was before, not smaller.

          But for software, it's a lot smaller.

        • By dxxmxnd 2025-05-3123:40

          This website has its own graph which looks different.

          https://www.trueup.io/job-trend

          I have never gone to Indeed to apply for a job.

    • By oblio 2025-05-3117:091 reply

      > People a decade from now will think Elon slashed Twitter's employee count by 90% because of some AI initiative, and not because he simply thought he could run a lot leaner.

      That part is so overblown. Twitter was still trying to hit moonshots. X is basically in "keep the lights on" mode as Musk doesn't need more. Yeah, if Google decides it doesn't want to grow anymore, it can probably cut it's workforce by 90%. And it will be as irrelevant as IBM in maximum 10 years.

      • By aikinai 2025-05-3117:192 reply

        What moonshots has Twitter gone for in the last decade? Feature velocity is also higher since the acquisition.

        • By oblio 2025-05-3119:26

          "Moonshots" was probably a bad term. Twitter devs used to be very active in open source, in Scala, actors, etc in particular. Fairly sure that's all dead. From most reports the majority of current Twitter devs are basically visa-shackled to the company.

        • By nova22033 2025-05-3120:39

          What happened to X, the payment app?

    • By lozenge 2025-05-318:18

      Macroeconomic policy always changes, recessions come and go, but it's not a permanent change in the way e-commerce or AI is.

    • By 1vuio0pswjnm7 2025-06-0116:46

      ZIRP jobs, n., jobs the compensation for which is derived from zero interest loans, often in the form of venture capital, instead of reserves, profits or other sources

      "When interest rates return to normal levels, the ZIRP jobs will disappear." -- Wall Street analyst

    • By bawolff 2025-05-314:033 reply

      Honestly, if anything i think AI is going to reverse the trend. Someone is going to have to be hired to clean up after them.

      • By notepad0x90 2025-05-316:291 reply

        I think they said that about outsourcing software dev jobs. The reality is somewhere in the middle. extreme cases will need cleanup but overall it's here to stay, maybe with more babysitting.

        • By godelski 2025-05-317:28

          I think the reality is Lemon Market Economics. We'll sacrifice quality for price. People want better quality but the truth is that it's a very information asymmetric game and it's really hard to tell quality. If it wasn't, we could all just rely on Amazon reviews and tech reviewers. But without informed consumers, price is all that matters even if it creates a market nobody wants.

      • By tempodox 2025-05-314:13

        If anyone will actually bother with cleaning up.

      • By xkcd1963 2025-05-315:032 reply

        Thats the impression I got. Things overall get just worse in quality because people rely too much on low wages and copy pasting LLM answers

        • By hattmall 2025-05-315:25

          I think that's true in software development. A lot of the focus is on coding because that's really the domain of the people interested in AI, because ultimately they ARE software. But the killer app isn't software, it's anything where the operation is formulaic, but the formula can be tedious to figure out, but once you know it you can confirm that it's correct by working backwards. Software has far too many variables, not least of which is the end user. On the other hand things like accounting, finance, and engineering are far more suitable for trained models and back testing for conformity.

        • By autobodie 2025-05-315:252 reply

          Get worse for who? The ruling class will simply never care how bad things get for working people if things are getting better for the ruling class.

          • By shswkna 2025-05-316:41

            The central problem with this statement is that we expect others to care, but we do not expect this from ourselves.

            We have agency. Whether we are brainwashed or not. If we cared about ourselves, then we don’t need another class, or race, or whatever other grouping to do this for us.

          • By xkcd1963 2025-05-315:31

            I meant just regular products as example if I login to bitpanda on browser the parts that would hold the translation hold the keys for translations instead. Just countless examples and many security issues as well.

            Regarding class struggle I think class division always existed but we the mass have all the tools to improve our situation.

    • By gmerc 2025-05-3110:04

      The flaw with the Zirp narrative that companies managed to raise more money than ever before the moment they had a somewhat believable narrative instead of the crypto/web3/metaverse nonsense.

    • By intalentive 2025-05-3117:52

      Yes. Tech is clearly a beneficiary of the Cantillon Effect.

    • By _rm 2025-06-011:37

      Always disheartening how much people forget and tolerate the underlying deliberate human absurdity that created these events.

      Almost no one has seen a world where the price of money wasn't centrally planned, a committee of experts deciding it based on gut feel like they did in command economies like the Soviet union.

      And then thousands of people's lives are disrupted as the interest rate swings wildly due purely to government action (corona lockdowns and fed zirp response), and it all somehow just ends up people talking about AI instead.

      The true wrongdoers get absolutely no consequences, and we all just carry on like there's no problem. Often because our taxes go to paying hordes of academics and economists to produce layers and layers of sophisticated propaganda that of course this system is the best one.

      Absurd and shitty world.

    • By leflambeur 2025-05-313:312 reply

      It's simply the old Capital vs Labor struggle. CEOs and VCs all sing in the same choir, and for the past 3 years the tune is "be leaner".

      p.s.: I'm a big fan of yours on Twitter.

      • By saubeidl 2025-05-318:052 reply

        Except Labor in Tech is unique in that it has zero class consciousness and often actively roots for their exploiters.

        If we were to unionize, we could force this machine to a halt and shift the balance of power back in our favor.

        But we don't, because many of us have been brainwashed to believe we're on the same side as the ones trying to squeeze us.

        • By GoblinSlayer 2025-05-318:371 reply

          >If we were to unionize

          Last time it was tried the union coerced everyone to root for their exploiters. People that unionize aren't magically different.

          • By le-mark 2025-05-3111:441 reply

            What “last time” are you referring to specifically?

            • By salawat 2025-05-3117:53

              I am also curious.

        • By wnc3141 2025-06-011:44

          I think the issue at play here is the quickly changing job descriptions, RSU's and the higher paid bunch benefiting from very unequal pay across a job category.

      • By godelski 2025-05-313:452 reply

          > the tune is "be leaner".
        
        Seems like they're happy to start cutting limbs to lose weight. It's hard to keep cutting fat if you've been aggressively cutting fat for so long. If the last CEO did their job there shouldn't be much fat left

        • By chii 2025-05-315:361 reply

          > If the last CEO did their job there shouldn't be much fat left

          funny how that fat analogy works...because the head (brain) has a lot more fat content than muscles/limbs.

          • By godelski 2025-05-316:48

            I never thought to extend the analogy like that, but I like it. It's showing. I mean look how people think my comments imply I don't know what triage is. Not knowing that would be counter to everything I'm saying, which is that a lot of these value numbers are poor guestimates at best. Happens every time I bring this up. It's absurd to think we could measure everything in terms of money. Even economists will tell you that's silly

        • By leflambeur 2025-05-313:581 reply

          yet this will continue until it grounds to a halt.

          It's amazing and cringy the level of parroting performed by executives. Independent thought is very rare amongst business "leaders".

          • By godelski 2025-05-314:171 reply

            Let's make the laptops thinner. This way we can clean the oil off of the keyboard, putting it on the screen.

            At this point I'm not sure it's lack of independent thought so much as lack of thought. I'm even beginning to question if people even use the products they work on. Shouldn't there be more pressure from engineers at this point? Is it yes men from top to bottom? Even CEOs seem to be yes men in response to share holders but that's like being a yes man to the wind.

            When I bring this stuff up I'm called negative, a perfectionist, or told I'm out of touch with customers and or understand "value". Idk, maybe they're right. But I'm an engineer. My job is to find problems and fix them. I'm not negative, I'm trying to make the product better. And they're right, I don't understand value. I'm an engineer, it's not my job to make up a number about how valuable some bug fix is or isn't. What is this, "Whose Line Is It Anyways?" If you want made up dollar values go ask the business monkeys, I'm a code monkey

            • By andsoitis 2025-05-315:441 reply

              > I'm an engineer, it's not my job to make up a number about how valuable some bug fix is or isn't.

              So you think all bugs are equally important to fix?

              • By godelski 2025-05-316:40

                No, of course not. That would be laughably absurd. So do you think I'm trolling or you're misunderstanding? Because who isn't familiar with triage?

                Do you think every bug's monetary value is perfectly aligned with user impact? Certainly that isn't true. If it were we'd be much better at security and would be more concerned with data privacy. There's no perfect metric for anything, and it would similarly be naïve to think you could place a dollar value on everything, let alone accurately. That's what I'm talking about.

                My main concern as an engineer is making the best product I can.

                The main concern of the manager is to make the best business.

                Don't get confused and think those are the same things. Hopefully they align, but they don't always.

    • By treyd 2025-05-3122:59

      That inflection point seems to more specifically start at the day of the new administration's inauguration.

    • By jt2190 2025-05-3118:231 reply

      It’s a shame that this is the top comment because it’s backward looking (“here’s why white-collar workers lost their jobs in the last year”) instead of looking forward and noticing that even if interest rates are reduced back to zero these jobs will not be performed by humans ever again. THAT is the message here. These workers need to retrain and move on.

      • By SR2Z 2025-05-3118:29

        > even if interest rates are reduced back to zero these jobs will not be performed by humans ever again

        It's not like companies laid off whole functions. These jobs will continue to be performed by humans - ZIRP just changes the number of humans and how much they get paid.

        > These workers need to retrain and move on.

        They only need to "retrain" insofar as they keep up with the current standards and practices. Software engineers are not going anywhere.

    • By Mistletoe 2025-05-3114:531 reply

      This is so cool. Had no idea FRED had data like this. They have everything.

      • By cyanydeez 2025-05-3115:01

        give trump a few more years, and that probably will change.

    • By Lu2025 2025-06-011:20

      > unique inflection near the start of 2025

      I wonder what happened in January 2025...

    • By fennecfoxy 2025-06-0216:53

      Inflation & mismanagement.

    • By alfiedotwtf 2025-06-010:51

      Bingo!

    • By bootsmann 2025-05-319:004 reply

      [flagged]

      • By pydry 2025-05-3110:128 reply

        Trump didnt kick off the layoffs.

        It was the war with Russia that drove the fed to raise interest rates in 2022 - a measure that was intended to curb inflation triggered by spikes in the prices of economic inputs (gas, oil, fertilizer, etc.).

        The tech layoffs started later that year.

        Widespread job cuts are an intended effect of raising interest rates - more unemployed = less spending = keeps a lid on inflation.

        AI is just cashing in on the trend.

        • By bojan 2025-05-3111:424 reply

          "War with Russia" sounds like someone willingly started that war, and Russia was the target.

          Of course, nothing is further from the truth. "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is what should be written there.

          • By andyferris 2025-05-3111:561 reply

            Fully agreed, but I suspect that was written that way because the Fed was rather more worried about the fact Russia was at war and under western sanctions, than that Ukraine was busy defending itself.

            Perhaps "Russia's war" would have been a better phrasing that captures both spirits (but it's not a phrase you hear said much).

            • By pbhjpbhj 2025-05-3113:14

              You think "Russia's war" captures more of the global relevance than "Russia's invasion of Ukraine"?

              For example, Ukraine was a very important food supplier -- one of the top grain suppliers in the World -- and the invasion caused shortages of some foods. Another example is that Ukraine provided a good source of iron ore for EU-based manufacture. If nothing else that would be important to USAmericans as indicating a market opportunity.

              Without that invasion and Putin's inspiration, would Trump have threatened invasion of USA's neighbours? That's got to be vital to USA finances too.

          • By didntcheck 2025-05-3114:352 reply

            I don't see how that follows at all. "War with x" is a factual statement with no implications of moral culpability in either direction

          • By pydry 2025-05-3113:012 reply

            Your demands of an absolute committment to maintaining the domestic establishment's war narrative while making a technical point have been noted. Slava Ukraini.

            • By SpicyLemonZest 2025-05-3117:571 reply

              Who, precisely, do you consider to be the domestic establishment? Neither the President of the United States nor his Secretary of Defense subscribe to this narrative.

            • By sham1 2025-05-3113:321 reply

              Truth is the best narrative, and it's better than – perhaps unconsciously – downplaying the culpability of the Russian Federation for the war.

              Heroyam Slava.

        • By nxm 2025-05-3111:344 reply

          2 trillion in unnecessary Covid related spending when Covid impact was winding down was the key reason for inflation. "$2000 checks!" was the campaign slogan

          • By xorcist 2025-05-3112:07

            People sometimes conveniently forgets that inflation historically has taken some 12-24 months to trickle through the economic system. That was the case this time, too. And the first inflationary impulses, famous for being "transitory", was actually before the Russian invasion of Eastern Europe.

          • By johnnyanmac 2025-05-3112:592 reply

            We're blaming the 1000 dollar stimulus checks to the people and not the massive PPP loans that the government never bothered to collect on? It's amazing how well billionaires trained us to fight amongst one another as they ransack in broad daylight.

            • By Workaccount2 2025-05-3113:543 reply

              No. The checks were mostly meaningless.

              The near zero interest rates, pause on student loan payments, pause on rent payments, doubling of unemployment pay, and then the dustings of stimulus checks and bonus childcare checks, all while most white collar workers just continued working like nothing happened, created an incredibly cash rich environment that most people have never seen before.

              And the PPP loans handouts to business owners just to throw more gas on the fire.

            • By fallingknife 2025-05-3114:29

              It's all the same money printing. The issue is that people generally believe that emergency measures were justified in early 2020 when the crisis hit and there were so many unknowns, but not justified a year later when the virus was already endemic and the vaccine was out.

          • By mempko 2025-05-3116:59

            You have it backwards, inflation causes an increase in the money supply. When prices rise, it forces people to take on more debt causing an increase in the money supply. Those 2000 checks actually probably dampened inflation for a short while. Most people used those checks to pay down debt (which destroys money).

          • By bgwalter 2025-05-3112:14

            That's one of the factors. In Europe at least the other factor is high energy prices after the broken turbine theater and subsequent destruction of Nord Stream.

            Prices and unemployment really started to rise after that. The EU buys overpriced LNG from the US, so the US is somewhat isolated from that. But the US is not isolated against the general economic downturn worldwide.

            Politicians do not care. Merz, with barely 25% approval of the German population, continues the policies outlined by Hegseth during his visit to the EU. Trump still plays theater to appease his MAGA base, but Senators Rubio and Graham increasingly start holding the reins.

        • By frontfor 2025-05-3111:232 reply

          I don’t believe the war specifically drove the Fed to raise interest rates. Inflation and asset prices have risen sharply a year prior to the war.

          • By andyferris 2025-05-3112:001 reply

            There was a specific and particular expectation (and even patience) for inflation to drop naturally as the supply chains again reached equilibrium after Covid.

            Russia's invasion of Ukraine however caused a whole bunch of economic inputs like energy and fertilizer to spike, and central banks world wide didn't want economies to "get used to" constant high inflation rates, causing a perpetual problem.

            • By Workaccount2 2025-05-3113:58

              Work from home was the wrench in the governments plan. If the pandemic happened in 2000, the stimulus would have been needed, as the tools for remote work were way too poor back then.

              But instead all the productivity workers just switched to their home office and things just kept working. The stimulus should have been shut off in early-mid 2021 when this was abundantly clear. But the government let it run because people were so jubilant in the money shower.

          • By larrled 2025-05-3112:08

            Biden credited the inflation to Putin, claiming that 70% was due to Putin’s price hikes.

            That was not entirely true.

            Trump’s pandemic spending (lockdowns, vaccines…), and subsequently Biden’s, but most importantly the curiously named Inflation Reduction Act were obvious drivers. You can’t stimulate an already overheated economy to the tune of 2 trillion without getting Larry Summers a bit worked up.

        • By fallingknife 2025-05-3114:27

          Raising interest rates has nothing to do with the 2022 war. If it did, rates would have come back down. Interest rate increases don't help with supply/demand driven price spikes. They do help with money supply and aggregate demand driven inflation, which was the cause of our recent inflation (that started way before Russia invaded Ukraine). The war was a convenient excuse because it deflects responsibility.

          And remember when they first said inflation was "transitory" and caused by supply chain issues from the economy reopening after covid? They didn't raise interest rates then because, like I mentioned above, interest rates don't help with supply shocks. If they did, the Fed would have raised rates then.

        • By brandall10 2025-05-3114:16

          Anecdotally, I detected a cooling starting in March of 2022.

          Was actively looking at this time for months prior and it went from a few recruiters a day reaching out to a few a week.

        • By mempko 2025-05-3116:53

          You are wrong, Trump's 2017 Tax cut bill had a provision that kicked in that caused the layoffs. Engineers became more expensive because now companies had to amortize their costs over 5 years instead of immediately.

        • By bubbleRefuge 2025-05-3114:051 reply

          There is no proof that higher interest rates lead to greater unemployment. In fact, macro employment kind of boomed during the referenced period. I'd posit that higher rates actually boosted macro employment stats . Why ? Because higher rates = higher income to rich people via interest income channel = higher fed budget deficits ( gov is net payer of interest) = higher GDP = lower unemployment ceterus paribus.

          • By lxgr 2025-05-3115:31

            This is completely backwards. When interest rates are high, the expected returns of equity investments have to be even higher to justify the risk over risk-free fixed income assets.

            And that's only the indirect effect on equity funding; debt funding just directly becomes more expensive.

      • By hoseyor 2025-05-3110:001 reply

        [flagged]

        • By quonn 2025-05-3110:131 reply

          Why would it have anything to do with AI? Generative AI has been widely used for two years and the drop is exactly around January 20. What happened in AI around that time?

    • By csomar 2025-05-315:17

      Elon Musk experiment is the worst anchor that can be used for comparison since the dude destabilized Twitter (re-branding, random layoffs, etc...). I'd be more interested in companies that went leaner but did it in a sane manner. The Internet user base grew between 2022 and now but Twitter might have lost users in that time period and certainly didn't make any new innovations beyond trying to charge its users more and confusing them.

  • By idkwhattocallme 2025-05-3014:4317 reply

    I worked at two different $10B+ market cap companies during ZIRP. I recall in most meetings over half of the knowledge workers attending were superfluous. I mean, we hired someone on my team to attend cross functional meetings because our calendars were literally too full to attend. Why could we do that? Because the company was growing and hiring someone to attend meetings wasn't going to hurt the skyrocketing stock. Plus hiring someone gave my VP more headcount and therefore more clout. The market only valued company growth, not efficiency. But the market always capitulates to value (over time). When that happens all those overlay hires will get axed. Both companies have since laid off 10K+. AI was the scapegoat. But really, a lot of the knowledge worker jobs it "replaces" weren't providing real value anyway.

    • By hn_throwaway_99 2025-05-3020:576 reply

      This is so true. We had a (admittedly derogatory) term we used during the rise in interest rates, "zero interest rate product managers". Don't get me wrong, I think great product managers are worth their weight in gold, but I encountered so many PMs during the ZIRP era who were essentially just Jira-updaters and meeting-schedulers. The vast majority of folks I see that were in tech that are having trouble getting hired now are in people who were in those "adjacent" roles - think agile coaches, TPMs, etc. (but I have a ton of sympathy for these folks - many of them worked hard for years and built their skills - but these roles were always somewhat "optional").

      I'd also highlight that beyond over-hiring being responsible for the downturn in tech employment, I think offshoring is way more responsible for the reduction in tech than AI when it comes to US jobs. Video conferencing tech didn't get really good and ubiquitous (especially for folks working from home) until the late teens, and since then I've seen an explosion of offshore contractors. With so many folks working remotely anyway, what does it matter if your coworker is in the same city or a different continent, as long as there is at least some daily time overlap (which is also why I've seen a ton of offshoring to Latin America and Europe over places like India).

      • By catigula 2025-05-3021:1011 reply

        Off-shoring is pretty big right now but what shocks me is that when I walk around my company campus I see obscene amounts of people visibly and culturally from, mostly, India and China. The idea that literally massive amounts of this workforce couldn't possibly be filled by domestic grads is pretty hard to engage with. These are low level business and accounting analyst positions.

        Both sides of the aisle retreated from domestic labor protection for their own different reasons so the US labor force got clobbered.

        • By ajmurmann 2025-05-3022:404 reply

          I am VERY pro-immigration. I do have concerns about the H1B program though. IMO it's not great for both immigrant workers, as well as non-immigrant workers because it creates a class of workers for whom it's harder to change employers which weakens their negotiation position. If this is the case for enough of the workforce it artificially depresses wages for everyone. I want to see a reform that makes it much easier for H1B workers to change employers.

          • By Spooky23 2025-05-3023:492 reply

            In context of tech, H1B is great for the money people in the US and India. It suppresses wages in both countries and is a powerful plum for employee “loyalty”. There’s a whole industry of companies stoking the pipeline of cheap labor and corrupting the hiring process.

            In big dollar markets, the program is used more for special skills. But when a big bank or government contractor needs marginally skilled people onshore, they open an office in Nowhere, Arizona, and have a hard time finding J2EE developers. So some company from New Jersey will appear and provide a steady stream of workers making $25/hr.

            The calculus is that more H1=less offshore.

            The smart move would be to just let skilled workers from India, China, etc with a visa that doesn’t tie them to an employer. That would end the abusive labor practices and probably reduce the number of lower end workers or the incentive to deny entry level employment to US nationals.

            • By senderista 2025-05-310:32

              H1-B also makes CS masters programs a cash cow for US schools.

            • By rightbyte 2025-05-310:032 reply

              How does H1B suppress wages in India?

          • By catigula 2025-05-3022:435 reply

            I want to use you as a bit of a sounding board, so don't take this as negative feedback.

            The problem is that the left, which was historically pro-labor, abdicated this position for racial reasons, and the right was always about maximizing the economic zone.

            • By hn_throwaway_99 2025-05-319:221 reply

              I saw a report recently about the political left in Denmark, who are basically one of the the only progressive movements in countries that understood what it takes to maintain support, and hence Denmark has had much less of a rise in support for far right parties than other countries in the world. Here's an article, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/24/magazine/denmark-immigrat....

              Basically, progressives in Denmark have argued for very strict immigration rules, the essential argument being that Denmark has an expensive social welfare state, and to get the populace to support the high taxes needed to pay for this, you can't just let anyone in who shows up on your doorstep.

              The American left could learn a ton of lessons from this. I may loath Greg Abbott for lots of reasons, but I largely support what he did bussing migrants to NYC and other liberal cities. Many people in these cities wanted to bask in the feelings of moral superiority by being "sanctuary cities", but public sentiment changed drastically when they actually had to start bearing a large portion of the cost of a flood of migrants.

            • By c0redump 2025-05-3119:13

              I mostly agree with you, but i think there’s something you got wrong. The democrat establishment didn’t abdicate their pro-labor position for reasons of racial equity- this was only ever a cover story.

              The real reason is that they are totally beholden to powerful business interests that benefit from mass immigration, and the ensuing suppression of American labor movements. The racial equity bit is just the line that they feed to their voters.

            • By ajmurmann 2025-05-3115:261 reply

              I think the problems are more complex and much harder to fix and more depressing. The actual policies by the Democratic party have been "pro-worker". Biden was strongly pro-union. I am hard pressed to think of any policy by the Biden administration that was focused on racial issues. However, it seems like the perception of the Democratic party is largely mixed in with leftists who don't even like the party.

              I think the real problem is that the median voter is either unable to, has no time to or no interest to understand basic economics and second-order consequences. We see this on both sides of the aisle. Policies like caps on credit card interest rates, rent control or no tax on tips are very, very popular while also being obviously bad after thinking about it for just 1 minute.

              This is compounded by there being relatively little discussion of policies like that. They get reported on but not discussed and analyzed. This takes us back to your point about the perception of the Democratic party. The media (probably because the median voter prefers it) will instead discuss issues that are more emotionally relatable, like the border being "overwhelmed", trans athletes, etc. which makes it less likely to get people to think about economic policy.

              This causes a preference for simple policies that seem to aim straight for the goal. Rent too high? Prohibit higher rent! Credit card fees too high? Prohibit high fees! Immigrants lower wages? Have fewer immigrant!

              Telling the median voter that H1-B visa holders are lowering wages due to the high friction of changing sponsors and that the solution is to loosen the visa restrictions is gonna go over well with much of the electorate. Even only the portion of initial problem statement will likely reach most voters in the form of "H1-B visas lower wages". Someone who will simply take that simplified issue and run with cutting down further on immigration will be much more likely to succeed with how public opinion is currently formed.

              All this stuff is why I love learning about policy and absolutely loath politics.

            • By SpicyLemonZest 2025-05-3023:112 reply

              Employment-based immigration policy just isn't controversial outside of very specific bubbles. Everyone who's considered the problem seriously, left and right, realizes that the H1B system is bad a point-based system is the way to go, which is why it's been part of every immigration reform proposal for over a decade with essentially no controversy. If this were the only aspect of immigration issues, or if people felt it was important enough to pull it out of broad immigration reform, it would pass in a heartbeat.

            • By bernawil 2025-06-013:30

              was the left ever truly anti-immigration? I genuinely ask. Because the last leftwing explicitly pro-union movement I can remember was the late 90s/2000s anti-globalists, the ones that used to protest the G7 summits and the like. But they were in favor of immigration, so it always seemed contradictory. Anyway, it's not like the right doesn't have its own equally contradictory positions.

          • By bdangubic 2025-05-3022:421 reply

            amen! that will never happen though, nothing ever happens here that helps the workers and whatever rights we have now are slowly dwindling (immigrants or otherwise…)

            • By andrekandre 2025-05-313:05

                > nothing ever happens here that helps the workers and whatever rights we have now are slowly dwindling
              
              its almost as if we need a 'workers party' or something... though i'd imagine first-past-the-post in the u.s makes that difficult.

          • By kstrauser 2025-05-3023:171 reply

            I agree with all of that. I've seen employers treat workers with H1B visas as slaves, basically. Local employees had a pretty decent work-life balance, but H1B employees got calls at 8PM on a Friday night to add a feature. And why not? What were they going to do quit (and have, what is it, something like 48 hours to get out of the country)?

            I felt enormous sympathy for my coworkers here with that visa. Their lives sucked because there was little downside for sociopathic managers to make them suck.

            Most frustrating was when they were doing the same kind of work I was doing, like writing Python web services and whatnot. We absolutely could hire local employees to do those things. They weren't building quantum computers or something. Crappy employers gamed the system to get below-market-rate-salary employees and work them like rented mules. It was infuriating.

            • By lokar 2025-05-310:033 reply

              It sucks that people are treated that way.

              While working at Google I worked with many many amazing H1B (and other kinds) visa holders. I did 3 interviews a week, sat on hiring committees (reading 10-15 packets a week) and had a pretty good gauge of what we could find.

              There was just no way I could see that we could replace these people with Americans. And they got paid top dollar and had the same wlb as everyone else (you could not generally tell what someone’s status was).

        • By yobbo 2025-05-3022:173 reply

          > The idea that literally massive amounts of this workforce couldn't possibly be filled by domestic grads

          One theory is that the benefit they might be providing over domestic "grads" is lack of prerequisites for promotion above certain levels (language, cultural fit, and so on). For managers, this means the prestige of increased headcount without the various "burdens" of managing "careerists". For example, less plausible competition for career-ladder jobs which can then be reserved for favoured individuals. Just a theory.

          • By boredatoms 2025-05-3022:302 reply

            I think that would backfire as the intrinsic culture of the company changes as it absorbs more people. Verticals would form from new hires who did manage to get promoted

            • By catigula 2025-05-3022:32

              It's also not correct to view people as atomized individuals. People band together on shared culture and oftentimes ethnicity.

            • By bradlys 2025-05-3023:33

              Which is exactly what has happened. Anyone in the industry for 15 years can easily see this.

          • By A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2025-05-3022:411 reply

            I will admit that this is the most plausible explanation of this phenomenon that explains the benefit to managers I have read on this issue so far.

            • By catigula 2025-05-3023:02

              Putting aside economic incentives, which the wealthy were eager to reap, the vast majority of the technical labor force in this country came and still comes from (outside of SF) a specific race and we have huge incentives that literally everyone reading this has brushed up against, whether in support or against, to alter that racial makeup.

              Obviously the only real solution to creating an artificial labor shortage is looking externally from the existing labor force. Simply randomly hiring underserved groups didn't really make sense because they weren't participants.

              Where I work, we have two main goals when I'm involved in the technical hiring process: hire the cheapest labor and try to increase diversity. I'm not necessarily against either, but those are our goals.

          • By throwaway2037 2025-05-317:231 reply

            Careerists: What does this term mean?

            • By TexanFeller 2025-05-3114:411 reply

              People more concerned about getting a promotion than they are taking pride in doing quality work that makes a difference. Corporate rubrics for promotion have little to do with doing great work and careerists focus heavily on playing these stupid games set up by HR execs.

        • By spoaceman7777 2025-05-319:10

          It's also worth noting that it's almost entirely native born Americans that are pushing back against nepotism. Extreme nepotism is still the norm (an expectation even) in most South and East Asian cultures. And it's quite readily acknowledged if you speak to newer hires who haven't realized yet that it is best kept quiet.

          It's a hard truth for many Americans to swallow, but it is the truth nonetheless.

          Not to say there isn't an incredible amount of merit... but the historical impact of rampant nepotism in the US is widely acknowledged, and this newer manifestation should be acknowledged just the same.

        • By gedy 2025-05-3021:262 reply

          I was working at a SoCal company a couple years ago (where I’m from), and we had a lot of Chinese and Indian folks. I remember cracking up when one of the Indian fellows pulled me aside and asked me where I was from, because I sounded so different with my accent and lingo. He thought I was from some small European country, lol.

          • By catigula 2025-05-3021:291 reply

            Just to note interpersonally I find pretty much any group to be great on average but being a participant of US labor and sympathetic to other US laborers this is clearly not something I can support.

            • By hluska 2025-05-310:17

              You can’t support having a good enough relationship with coworkers from outside of your country that you can relate cheerful anecdotes about them?

          • By tcdent 2025-05-3022:29

            The language I use being from southern California has, on more than one occasion, sparked conversation about it.

            Sorry, dude, it's like, all I know.

        • By therealpygon 2025-05-3023:10

          My opinion is that off-shore teams are also going to be some of the jobs more easily replaced, because many of these are highly standardized with instructions due to the turnover they have. I wouldn’t be surprised if these outsourcing companies are already working toward that end. They are definitely automating and/or able to collect significant training data from the various tools they require their employees to use for customers.

        • By lostlogin 2025-05-3023:141 reply

          > The idea that literally massive amounts of this workforce couldn't possibly be filled by domestic grads is pretty hard to engage with.

          I hear this argument where I live for various reasons, but surely it only ever comes down to wages and/or conditions?

          If the company paid a competitive rate (ie higher), locals would apply. Surely blaming a lack of local interest is rarely going to be due to anything other than pay or conditions?

          • By catigula 2025-05-3023:151 reply

            The company having access to the global labor force is the problem we're explicitly discussing. This isn't seen as something desirable by US workers.

            • By lanstin 2025-05-310:081 reply

              I was born in NC, and I mostly have experienced the large amount of immigration as a positive. Most of the people I grew up were virulently anti-intellectuals, mocking math and science learning, and most of them have gone on to be realtors and business folks, bankers even. All the people I've met from China or South Asia (the two demographics I work most closely worth) value learning and science and math - not as some "lets have STEM summer camps" but when they meet some new 8 year old will ask them to solve some math problems (like precisely 1 of my kids' dozens of relatives).

              I enjoy meeting the very smart people from all sorts of backgrounds - they share the values of education and hard work that my parents emphasized, and they have an appreciation for what we enjoy as software engineers; US born folks tend to have a bit of entitlement, and want success without hard work.

              I interview a fair number of people, and truly first rate minds are a limited resource - there's just so many in each city (and not everyone will want to or be able to move for a career). Even with "off-shoring" one finds after hiring in a given city for a while, it gets harder, and the efficient thing to do is to open a branch in a new city.

              I don't know, perhaps the realtors from my class get more money than many scientists or engineers, and certainly more than my peers in India (whose salaries have gone from 10% of mine to about 40% of mine in the past decade or two), but the point is the real love of solving novel problems - in an industry where success leads to many novel problems.

              Hard work, interesting problems, and building things that actual people use - these are the core value prop for software engineering as a career; the money is pretty new and not the core; finding people who share that perspective is priceless. Enough money to provide a good start to your children and help your family is good, but never the heart of the matter.

        • By underlipton 2025-05-3023:121 reply

          We all get 5 conspiracy theories before we advance from "understandably suspicious, given the complexity of the modern world" to "reliable tinfoil purchasers", and one of mine is that the prevalence of Indian execs and, to a lesser extent, Indian and Chinese workers in tech is a backdoor concession to countries who could open a demographic can of whoop-ass on us if they really wanted to. We let them bleed off the ambitious intellectuals who could become a political issue for their elite, and ours get convenient scapegoats for why businesses can't hire, train, and pay domestic workers well. As far as top men are concerned, it's a good deal.

          Nadella ascending to the leadership of Micro"I Can't Believe It's Not Considered A State-Sponsored Defense Corp"soft is what got my mildly xenophobic (sorry) gears turning.

          • By hluska 2025-05-310:241 reply

            Edited:

            Actually disregard, this isn’t worth it, but I don’t grant any freebies.

        • By jayd16 2025-05-3022:591 reply

          I mean, aren't 3 out of 8 humans from India or China? If the company is big enough to appeal to a global applicant pool its a bit expected.

          • By sokoloff 2025-05-3023:092 reply

            It’s presumably (from context) a company campus in the US that they’re taking about. I wouldn’t expect 3 of 8 legally authorized to work in the US people to be Chinese or Indian combined.

            Other than a few international visitors, I’d expect the makeup to look like the domestic tech worker demographics rather than like the global population demographics.

            • By bradlys 2025-05-3023:431 reply

              Also, anyone who has worked in these companies also know it’s much larger than 3 out of 8… comical to act like it’s only 3/8.

            • By apex3stoker 2025-05-316:58

              I think most software companies hire from computer science graduates from US colleges. It’s likely that international students makes up a large percentage of these graduates.

        • By splitstud 2025-05-3021:16

          [dead]

        • By absurdo 2025-05-3022:51

          [flagged]

        • By renewiltord 2025-05-311:072 reply

          [flagged]

          • By VonTum 2025-05-312:551 reply

            What a weird crabs-in-a-bucket argument against unions. "Don't empower yourself and the rest of your colleagues because they might get powerful enough to kick you out"?

            The whole reason H1Bs were invented is to disempower the existing workforce. Not reaching for a (long overdue) tool of power for tech workers is playing right into their hand.

          • By catigula 2025-05-313:062 reply

            The funny thing is that you're not wrong and this is yet another feather in the cap of "foreign labor are literal scabs" argument.

            • By throwaway2037 2025-06-023:43

              This comment made me laugh. I have not seen the term "scab" since the late 1980s when there were a bunch of union strikes in my area. It is funny to see it applied to white collar (office) workers.

              Edit: I found this funny quote describing a scab from the early 1900s:

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_London#Diatribe_about_sca...

                  > After God had finished the rattlesnake, the toad, and the vampire, he had some awful substance left with which he made a scab. A scab is a two-legged animal with a corkscrew soul, a water brain, a combination backbone of jelly and glue. Where others have hearts, he carries a tumor of rotten principles.

            • By renewiltord 2025-05-317:18

              The history of unions and the past of the AFLCIO is filled with successful lobbying to prevent immigrants from becoming American. They’re not going to stop suddenly today.

              Knowing one’s enemy is key to fighting them.

      • By adamtaylor_13 2025-05-314:56

        I’m realizing that 100% of all product managers I have ever worked with were just ZIRP-PMs.

        I have never once worked with a product manager who I could describe as “worth their weight in gold”.

        Not saying they don’t exist, but they’re probably even rarer than you think.

      • By boogieknite 2025-05-3023:32

        first job out of college i was one of these pms. luckily i figured it out quickly and would spend maybe 2 hours a day working, 6 hours a day teaching myself to program. i cant believe that job existed and they gave it to me. one of my teammates was moved to HR and he was distraught over how he actually had work to do

      • By icedchai 2025-05-3022:50

        I worked at a small company with more PMs than developers. It was incredible how much bull it created.

      • By cavisne 2025-05-3121:12

        My theory for these PM's is its basically a cheap way to take potential entrepreneurs off the market. Its hard to predict if a startup will succeed but one genre of success is having a Type A "fake it till you make it" non technical cofounder who can keep raising long enough to get product market fit.

        These types all go to the same schools and do really well, interview the same, and value the prestige of working in big tech. So it's pretty easy to identify them and offer them a great career path and take them off the market.

        Technical founders are way trickier to identify as they can be dropouts, interview poorly, not value the prestige etc.

      • By aswegs8 2025-05-3119:011 reply

        How are TPMs optional? In my experience they provide more value than PMs that don't understand technology.

        • By hn_throwaway_99 2025-05-3123:25

          Perhaps the terminology differs between companies, but in my experience TPM means technical program manager. For large projects they were responsible for creating project Gantt charts, identify blockers early, and essentially "greasing the wheels" between disparate teams.

          Again, IMO the good ones added a lot of value by making sure no balls got dropped, which is easy to do with large, multi-team projects. Most of them, though, did a lot of just "status checks" and meeting updates.

    • By mlsu 2025-05-3020:523 reply

      I suspect that these "AI layoffs" are really "interest rate" layoffs in disguise.

      Software was truly truly insane for a bit there. Straight out of college, no-name CS degree, making $120, $150k (back when $120k really meant $120k)? The music had to stop on that one.

      • By spamizbad 2025-05-3021:201 reply

        Yeah, my spiciest take is that Jr. Dev salaries really started getting silly during the 2nd half of the 2010s. It was ultimately supply (too little) and demand (too much) pushing them upward, but it was a huge signal we were in a bubble.

        • By LPisGood 2025-05-3023:102 reply

          As someone who entered the workforce just after this, I feel like I missed the peak. A ton if those people got boatloads of money, great stock options, and many years of experience that they can continue to leverage for excellent positions.

          • By trade2play 2025-05-3023:522 reply

            I joined in 2018.

            Honestly it was 10 years too late. The big innovations of the 2010 era were maturing. I’ve spent my career maintaining and tweaking those, which does next to zero for your career development. It’s boring and bloated. On the bright side I’ve made a lot of money and have no issues getting jobs so far.

            • By Aeolun 2025-05-310:371 reply

              I think my career started in 2008? That was a great time to start for the purpose of learning, but a terrible one for compensation. Basically nobody knew what they were doing, and software wasn’t the ticket to free money that it became later yet.

            • By lurking_swe 2025-05-310:35

              there’s always interesting work out there. It just doesn’t always align with ethical values, good salary, or work life balance. There’s always a trade off.

              For example think of space x, Waymo, parts of US national defense, and the sciences (cancer research, climate science - analyzing satellite images, etc). They are doing novel work that’s certainly not boring!

              I think you’re probably referring to excitement and cutting edge in consumer products? I agree that has been stale for a while.

          • By idkwhattocallme 2025-05-3023:29

            Don't worry, there is always another bubble on the horizon

      • By nyarlathotep_ 2025-05-3021:313 reply

        The irony now is that 120k is basically minimum wage for major metros (and in most cases that excludes home ownership).

        Of course, that growth in wages in this sector was a contributing factor to home/rental price increases as the "market" could bear higher prices.

        • By rekenaut 2025-05-3022:482 reply

          I feel that saying "120k is basically minimum wage for major metros" is absurd. As of 2022, there are only three metro areas in the US that have a per capita income greater than $120,000 [1] (Bay Area and Southwest Connecticut). Anywhere else in the US, 120k is doing pretty well for yourself, compared to the rest of the population. The average American working full time earns $60k [2]. I'm sure it's not a comfortable wage in some places, but "basically minimum wage" just seems ignorant.

          [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_metropol...

          [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_...

          • By lamename 2025-05-3023:572 reply

            I disagree. Your data doesnt make the grandparent's assertion false. Cost of living != per capita or median income. Factoring in sensible retirement, expensive housing, inflation, etc, I think the $120k figure may not be perfect, but is close enough to reality.

            • By BlueTemplar 2025-05-310:061 reply

              Since when "minimum wage" means "sensible retirement" ?

              More like it means ending up with government-provided bare minimum handouts to not have you starve (assuming you somehow manage to stay on minimum wage all your life).

            • By nyarlathotep_ 2025-05-310:38

              Correct, I mean in the sense of "living a standard of life that my parents and friends parents (all of very, very modest means) had 20 years ago when I was a teenager."

              I mean a real wage associated with standards of living that one took for granted as "normal" when I was young.

          • By impossiblefork 2025-05-317:001 reply

            It actually is basically minimum wage for major metros.

            If I took a job for ~100k in Washington, I'd live worse than I did as a PhD student in Sweden. It would basically suck. I'm not sure ~120k would make things that different.

            • By nyarlathotep_ 2025-05-3121:49

              Yep exactly. I mean "maintaining a basic material standard of living that even non 'high-earners' had twenty years ago"

              The erosion of the standard of living in the US (and the West more broadly) is not something to be ignored in any discussion of wages.

        • By alephnerd 2025-05-3021:363 reply

          CoL in London or Dublin is comparable to much of the US, but new grad salaries are in the $30-50k range.

          The issue is salary expectations in the US are much higher than those in much of Western Europe despite having similar CoL.

          And $120k for a new grad is only a tech specific thing. Even new grad management consultants earn $80-100k base, and lower for other non-software roles and industries.

          • By ponector 2025-05-3022:482 reply

            I've seen recently an open position for senior dev with 60k salary and hybrid 3 days per week in London. Insane!

            • By alephnerd 2025-05-311:001 reply

              Yep. And costs are truly insane in Greater London. Bay Area level housing prices and Boston level goods prices, but Mississippi or Alabama level salaries.

              But that's my point - salaries are factored based on labor market demands and comparative performance of your macroeconomy (UK high finance and law salaries are comparable with the US), not CoL.

            • By zelphirkalt 2025-05-3120:39

              I mean, seeing an open position does not equal that position ever being filled. It can also likely be a fake position, trying to create the "we are growing and hiring!" impression, or mandated by law to be there, but made artificially worse, because they have someone internally, that they want to move to the position.

          • By FirmwareBurner 2025-05-3021:483 reply

            >but new grad salaries are in the $30-50k range

            But in UK an Ireland they get free healthcare, paid vacation, sick leave and labor protections, no?

            • By alephnerd 2025-05-3021:522 reply

              The labor protections are basically ignored (you will be expected to work off the clock hours in any white collar role), and the free healthcare portion gets paid out of employer's pockets via taxes so it comes out the same as a $70-80k base (and associated taxes) would in much of the US.

              There's a reason you don't see new grad hiring in France (where they actually try to enforce work hours), and they have a subsequently high youth unemployment rate.

              Though even these new grad roles are at risk to move to CEE, where their administrations are giving massive tax holidays on the tune of $10-20k per employee if you invest enough.

              And the skills gap I mentioned about CS in the US exists in Weatern Europe as well. CEE, Israel, and India are the only large tech hubs that still treat CS as an engineering disciple instead of as only a form of applied math.

            • By __turbobrew__ 2025-05-311:001 reply

              > free healthcare

              I pay over 40% effective tax rate. Healthcare is far from free.

          • By rcpt 2025-05-3022:49

            Maybe the EU is different but in the US there's no software engineering union. Our wages are purely what the market dictates.

            Think they're too high? You're free to start a company and pay less.

        • By bravesoul2 2025-05-3023:091 reply

          Yeah 120k is the maximum I have earned over 20 years in the industry. I started off circa. 40k maybe that's 70k adj for inflation. Not in US.

          • By lostlogin 2025-05-3023:151 reply

            It’s always going to be difficult to compare countries. Things like healthcare, housing, childcare, schooling, taxes and literally every single thing are going to differ.

            • By bravesoul2 2025-05-3023:171 reply

              The arbitrage is when you are young and healthy get that US salary and save then retreat home in your 40s and 50s. Stay healthy of course.

      • By catigula 2025-05-3021:072 reply

        That really only happened in HCOL areas.

        • By bravesoul2 2025-05-3023:11

          HCOL wasn't the driver though. It is abundance of investment and desire to hire. If the titans could collude to pay engineer half as much, they would. They tried.

        • By xp84 2025-05-3021:31

          Sure, but there was a massive concentration of such people in those areas.

    • By icedchai 2025-05-3016:042 reply

      I've worked at smaller companies where half the people in the meetings were just there because they had nothing else to do. Lots of "I'm a fly on the wall" and "I'll be a note taker" types. Most of them contributed nothing.

      • By Nasrudith 2025-05-314:541 reply

        The first mistake is thinking that contribution must be in the form of output instead of ingestion. Of course meetings aren't often the most efficient form of doing so. More being forced to listen (at least officially) so there isn't an excuse.

        • By icedchai 2025-05-3122:57

          This is true, but generally speaking there should be more people "producing" than "ingesting." This is often not the case. Most meetings are useless, and this has become much worse in modern times. Example: agile "scrum" and its daily stand ups, which inevitably turn into status reports.

          At some point in the 2000's, every manager decided they needed weekly 1:1's, resulting in even more meetings. Many of these are entirely ineffective. As one boss told me, "I've been told I need to have 1:1's, so I'm having them!" I literally sat next to him and talked every day, but it was a good time to go for coffee...

      • By xp84 2025-05-3021:351 reply

        My friend's company (he was VP of Software & IT at a non-tech company) had a habit of meetings with no particular agenda and no decisions that needed making. Just meeting because it was on the calendar, discussing any random thing someone wanted to blab about. Not how my friend ran his team but that was how the rest did.

        Then they had some disappointing results due to their bad decision-making elsewhere in the company, and they turned to my friend and said "Let's lay off some of your guys."

        • By osigurdson 2025-05-311:38

          It is almost like once a company gets rolling, there is sufficient momentum to keep it going even if many layers aren't doing very much. The company becomes a kind of meta-economic zone where nothing really matters. Politics / fights emerge between departments / layers but has nothing to do with making a better product / service. This can go on for decades if the moat is large enough.

    • By bachmeier 2025-05-3015:041 reply

      > I mean, we hired someone on my team to attend cross functional meetings because our calendars were literally too full to attend.

      Some managers read Dilbert and think it's intended as advice.

      • By trhway 2025-05-3022:521 reply

        AI has been also consuming Dilbert as part of its training...

        • By DonHopkins 2025-05-312:511 reply

          Worse yet, AI has been consuming Scott Adams quotes as part of its training...

          "The reality is that women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It’s just easier this way for everyone. You don’t argue with a four-year old about why he shouldn’t eat candy for dinner. You don’t punch a mentally handicapped guy even if he punches you first. And you don’t argue when a women tells you she’s only making 80 cents to your dollar. It’s the path of least resistance. You save your energy for more important battles." -Scott Adams

          "Women define themselves by their relationships and men define themselves by whom they are helping. Women believe value is created by sacrifice. If you are willing to give up your favorite activities to be with her, she will trust you. If being with her is too easy for you, she will not trust you." -Scott Adams

          "Nearly half of all Blacks are not OK with White people. That’s a hate group." -Scott Adams

          "Based on the current way things are going, the best advice I would give to White people is to get the hell away from Black people. Just get the fuck away. Wherever you have to go, just get away. Because there’s no fixing this. This can’t be fixed." -Scott Adams

          "I’m going to back off from being helpful to Black Americas because it doesn’t seem like it pays off. ... The only outcome is that I get called a racist." -Scott Adams

          • By dennis_jeeves2 2025-05-3120:351 reply

            >Worse yet

            Should have been 'better still'.

            • By DonHopkins 2025-06-0111:11

              Thank you!!! It's so awesome when an unrepentant racist piece of shit chimes in to perfectly prove my point!

              I swear, folks: dennis_jeeves2 is not my sock puppet, the way Scott "plannedchaos" Adams is his own sock puppet and biggest fan.

              Scott Adams Poses as His Own Fan on Message Boards to Defend Himself:

              https://comicsalliance.com/scott-adams-plannedchaos-sockpupp...

              >Dilbert creator Scott Adams came to our attention last month for the first time since the mid to late '90s when a blog post surfaced where he said, among other things, that women are "treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It's just easier this way for everyone."

              >Now, he's managed to provoke yet another internet maelstorm of derision by popping up on message boards to harangue his critics and defend himself. That's not news in and of itself, but what really makes it special is how he's doing it: by leaving comments on Metafilter and Reddit under the pseudonym PlannedChaos where he speaks about himself in the third person and attacks his critics while pretending that he is not Scott Adams, but rather just a big, big fan of the cartoonist.

              >And what makes it really, really special is the level of spectacular ego and hilarious self-congratulation suddenly on display in the comments when you realize they were written by Scott Adams' number one fan... Scott Adams. [...]

    • By PeterStuer 2025-05-3015:392 reply

      "Hiring someone gave my VP more headcount and therefore more clout"

      Which is the sole reason automation will not make most people obsolete until the VP level themselves are automated.

      • By dlivingston 2025-05-3020:373 reply

        No, not if the metric by which VPs get clout changes.

        • By monkeyelite 2025-05-3022:42

          That metric is evaluated deep in the human psyche.

        • By thfuran 2025-05-3022:12

          The more cloud spend the better. Take 10% of it as a bonus?

        • By 0xpgm 2025-05-314:24

          It's about to change to doing more with less headcount and higher AI spend

      • By Nasrudith 2025-05-314:57

        Automation is just one form of "face a sufficiently competitive marketplace such that the company can no longer tolerate the dead-weight loss of their egos".

    • By JSR_FDED 2025-05-3023:571 reply

      I don’t doubt there’s a lot of knowledge workers who aren’t adding value.

      I’m worried about the shrinking number of opportunities for juniors.

      • By hn_throwaway_99 2025-05-3110:10

        I agree with this, but I still think that offshoring is much more responsible for this than AI.

        I have definitely seen real world examples where adding junior hires at ~$100k+ is being completely forgone when you can get equivalent output from someone making $40k offshore.

    • By phendrenad2 2025-05-3015:182 reply

      To the contrary - they were providing value to the VP who benefitted from inflated headcount. That's "real value", it's just a rogue agent is misaligned with the company's goals.

      And AI cannot provide that kind of value. Will a VP in charge of 100 AI agents be respected as much as a VP in charge of 100 employees?

      At the end of the day, we're all just monkeys throwing bones in the air in front of a monolith we constructed. But we're not going to stop throwing bones in the air!

      • By idkwhattocallme 2025-05-3016:082 reply

        True! I golfed with the president of the division on a Friday (during work) and we got to the root of this. Companies would rather burn money on headcount (counted as R&D) than show profits and pay the govt taxes. When you have 70%+ margin on your software, you have money to burn. Dividends back to shareholders was not rewarded during ZIRP. On VP's being respected. I found at the companies I worked at VPs and their directs were like Nobles in a feudal kingdom constantly quibbling/battling for territory. There were alliances with others and full on takeouts at points. One VP described it as Game of Thrones. Not sure how this all changes when your kingdom is a bunch of AI agents that presumably anyone can operate.

        • By lotsofpulp 2025-05-3022:332 reply

          > Companies would rather burn money on headcount (counted as R&D) than show profits and pay the govt taxes

          The data does not support this. The businesses with the highest market caps are the ones with the highest earnings.

          https://companiesmarketcap.com/

          Sort by # of employees and you get a list of companies with lower market caps.

          • By trade2play 2025-05-311:221 reply

            Google/Facebooks earnings are so high they can afford to be wildly wasteful with headcount and still be market leaders

            • By Ekaros 2025-05-319:26

              Those two are perfect examples of burning insane amounts of money and still showing profits beyond that... Whole metaverse investment. And all the products that Google has abandoned. Even returning all the payments like Stadia...

          • By versteegen 2025-05-310:461 reply

            If you sort by number of employees you get companies where those employees aren't in R&D divisions.

            • By lotsofpulp 2025-05-310:51

              Their comment reads to me as if businesses hire employees (regardless of the work they do, since we are discussing employees that don't do anything) because investors consider employees as R&D (even useless ones).

              Either way, there is no data I have seen to suggest market cap correlates with number of employees. The strongest correlation I see is to net income (aka profit), and after that would be growing revenues and/or market share.

        • By myko 2025-05-3017:001 reply

          Not so fun in real life but I kind of like this as a video game concept

      • By BriggyDwiggs42 2025-05-3015:51

        We really oughta work on setting up systems that don’t waste time on things like this. Might be hard, but probably would be worth the effort.

    • By paulcole 2025-05-3020:342 reply

      Just curious, did you put yourself in the superfluous category either time?

      • By idkwhattocallme 2025-05-3023:141 reply

        Ultimately (and sadly) yes. While I never habitually or intentionally attended meetings to just look busy, I did work on something I knew had a long shot of creating value for the business. I worked on 0-1 products that if the company was more disciplined would not (or should not) have attempted. I left both on my own accord seeing the writing on the wall.

        • By dehrmann 2025-05-311:19

          > I worked on 0-1 products that if the company was more disciplined would not (or should not) have attempted.

          You said you were at large companies, so this is a hard call to make. A lot of large companies work on lots of small products knowing they probably won't work, but one of them might, so it's still worth it to try. It's essentially the VC model.

    • By 827a 2025-05-310:12

      Half of everyone at most large companies could be retired with no significant impact to the company's ability to generate revenue. The problem has always been figuring out which half.

    • By lukev 2025-05-3022:522 reply

      Whenever I think about AI and labor, I can't help thinking about David Graeber's [Bullshit Jobs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs).

      And there's multiple confounding factors at play.

      Yes, lots of jobs are bullshit, so maybe AI is a plausible excuse to downside and gain efficiency.

      But also the dynamic that causes the existence of bullshit jobs hasn't gone away. In fact, assuming AI does actually provide meaningful automation or productivity improvemenet, it might well be the case that the ratio of bullshit jobs increases.

      • By throw234234234 2025-06-022:19

        Its hard to automate something that is hard to define, so I see the productive jobs/workers being punished by AI moreso than those jobs. Generally I see anecdotally:

        - Value creators (i.e. the ones historically carrying companies with the 80%/20% rule) generally are the ones cautious and/or fearful of AI. The ones that carried most of the company. Their output is measurable and definable so able to be automated.

        - The people in the jobs you mention in your post conversely are usually the ones most excited about AI. The ones in meetings all day, in the corporate machine. By definition their job is already not well defined anyway - IMV this is harder to automate. They are often there for other reasons other than "productive output" - e.g. compliance, nepotism, stakeholder management, etc.

      • By alvah 2025-05-310:241 reply

        Exactly. For as long as I can remember, in any organisation of any reasonable size I have worked in, you could get rid of the ~50% of the headcount who aren't doing anything productive without any noticeable adverse effects (on the business at least, obviously the effects on the individuals would be somewhat adverse). This being the case, there are obviously many other factors other than pure efficiency keeping people employed, so why would an AI revolution on it's own create some kind of massive Schumpeterian shockwave?

        • By ryandrake 2025-05-310:542 reply

          People keep tossing around this 50% figure like it's a fact, but do you really think these companies just have half their staff just not doing anything? It just seems absurd, and I honestly don't believe it.

          Everywhere I've ever worked, we had 3-4X more work to do than staff to do it. It was always a brutal prioritization problem, and a lot of good projects just didn't get done because they ended up below the cut line, and we just didn't have enough people to do them.

          I don't know where all these companies are that have half their staff "not doing anything productive" but I've never worked at one.

          What's more likely? 1. Companies are (for reasons unknown) hiring all these people and not having them do anything useful, or 2. These people actually do useful things, but HN commenters don't understand those jobs and simply conclude they're doing nothing?

          • By trade2play 2025-05-311:25

            All of the big software companies are like the parent describes, in most of their divisions.

            Managers always want more headcount. Bigger teams. Bigger scope. Promotions. Executives have similar incentives or don’t care. That’s the reason why they’re bloated.

          • By alvah 2025-05-311:341 reply

            Have you heard of Twitter? 80-90% reduction in numbers, visible effects to the user (resulting from the headcount cuts, not the politics of the owner)? Pretty much zero.

            • By hnaccount_rng 2025-05-319:37

              That’s a difficult example. I don’t think anyone would reasonably expect the engineering artifact twitter.com to break. But the business artifact did break. At least to a reasonable degree. The Ad revenue is still down (both business news and the ads I’m experiencing are from less well resourced brands). And yes, that has to do with “answering emails with poop emojis” and “laying off content checkers”

    • By ozim 2025-05-3023:18

      Bad part is all those guys attending meetings start feeling important. They start feeling like they are doing the job.

      I’ve seen those guys it is painful to watch.

    • By ivape 2025-05-314:02

      I've said this many times, that the abundance and wealth of the tech industry basically provided vast amounts of Universal Basic Income to a variety of roles (all of agile is one example). We're at a critical moment where we actually have to look at cost-cutting on this UBI.

    • By federiconafria 2025-05-316:38

      "my VP more headcount and therefore more clout"

      This had me thinking, how are they going to get "clout", by comparing AI spending?

    • By daxfohl 2025-05-310:322 reply

      Agree, but two questions:

      First, is AI really a better scapegoat? "Reducing headcount due to end of ZIRP" maybe doesn't sound great, but "replacing employees with AI" sounds a whole lot worse from a PR perspective (to me anyway).

      Second, are companies actually using AI as the scapegoat? I haven't followed it too closely, but I could imagine that layoffs don't say anything about AI at all, and it's mostly media and FUD inventing the correlation.

      • By ledauphin 2025-05-310:441 reply

        the one does actually sound worse because... it's actually worse. it clarifies that the companies themselves were playing games with people's livelihoods because of the potential for profit.

        whereas "AI" is intuitively an external force; it's much harder to assign blame to company leadership.

        • By daxfohl 2025-05-311:031 reply

          I'd read the first as adjusting to market demand, not playing with people's lives. If if were construed as playing with lives, that could apply to basically any investment.

          • By tilne 2025-06-011:37

            Agreed. You could make the case that employment in general is playing with someone’s life.

      • By leflambeur 2025-05-313:41

        isn't the scapegoat he or she who gets sacrificed? I think engineers are that

    • By __turbobrew__ 2025-05-310:51

      Turns out 50% of white collar jobs are just daycare for adults.

    • By matthest 2025-05-310:041 reply

      Does anyone else think the fact that companies hire superfluous employees (i.e. bullshit jobs) is actually fantastic?

      Because they don't have to do that. They could just operate at max efficiency all the time.

      Instead, they spread the wealth a bit by having bullshit jobs, even if the existence of these jobs is dependent on the market cycle.

      • By nyarlathotep_ 2025-05-311:233 reply

        > Does anyone else think the fact that companies hire superfluous employees (i.e. bullshit jobs) is actually fantastic?

        I do.

        It's much more important that people live a dignified life and be able to feed their families than "increasing shareholder value" or whatever.

        I'm a person that would be hypothetically supportive of something like DOGE cuts, but I'd rather have people earning a living even with Soviet-style make work jobs than unemployed. I don't desire to live in a cutthroat "competitive" society where only "talent" can live a dignified life. I don't know if that's "wealth distribution" or socialism or whatever; I don't really care, nor make claim it's some airtight political philosophy.

        • By andrekandre 2025-05-315:46

            > It's much more important that people live a dignified life and be able to feed their families than "increasing shareholder value" or whatever.
          
          its just my intuition, but talking to many people around me, i get the feeling like this is why people on both "left" and "right" are in a lot of ways (for lack of a better word) irate at the system as a whole... if thats true, i doubt ai will improve the situation for either...

        • By leflambeur 2025-05-313:421 reply

          tech bros think not only that that system is good, but that they'd be the winners

          • By tilne 2025-06-011:48

            I think the more optimistic interpretation would be that companies eliminating bullshit jobs would provide signal on which jobs aren’t bullshit, and then individuals and the job prep/education systems could align to this.

            That’s very optimistic! I don’t fully agree with it, but I certainly know some very intelligent people that I wish were contributing more to the world than they do as a pawn in a game of corporate chess.

    • By disambiguation 2025-05-3016:531 reply

      > But really, a lot of the knowledge worker jobs it "replaces" weren't providing real value anyway.

      I think quotes around "real value" would be appropriate as well. Consider all the great engineering it took to create Netflix, valued at $500b - which achieves what SFTP does for free.

      • By jsnider3 2025-05-310:442 reply

        Netflix's value comes from being convenient and compatible with the copyright system in a way sharing videos P2P definitely isn't.

        • By disambiguation 2025-05-317:54

          I'm not advocating for p2p, but rather drawing attention to the word "value" and what it means to create it. For example, would netflix as a piece of software hold any value if the company were to suddenly lose all its copyrights and IP licenses? Whereas something like an operating system or excel has standalone utility, netflix is only as valuable as its IP. The software isn't designed to create value, but instead to fully utilize the value of a piece of property. It's an important distinction to keep in mind especially when designing such software. Now consider that in the streaming world there isn't just netflix, but prime, Hulu, HBO, etc. Etc.

          The parent comment was complaining about certain employees contributions to "real value" or lack thereof. My question is, how do you ascertain the value of work in this context where the software isn't what's valuable but the IP is, and further how do justify working on a product thats already a solved problem and still refer to it as "creating 'real' value"?

        • By lazyasciiart 2025-05-316:59

          And their increasingly restrictive usage policies are basically testing how important the 'convenient' piece is.

  • By tdeck 2025-05-312:1729 reply

    Maybe someone can help me wrap my head around this in a different way, because here's how I see it.

    If these tools are really making people so productive, shouldn't it be painfully obvious in companies' output? For example, if these AI coding tools were an amazing productivity boost in the end, we'd expect to see software companies shipping features and fixes faster than ever before. There would be a huge burst in innovative products and improvements to existing products. And we'd expect that to be in a way that would be obvious to customers and users, not just in the form of some blog post or earnings call.

    For cost center work, this would lead to layoffs right away, sure. But companies that make and sell software should be capitalizing on this, and only laying people off when they get to the point of "we just don't know what to do with all this extra productivity, we're all out of ideas!". I haven't seen one single company in this situation. So that makes me think that these decisions are hype-driven short term thinking.

    • By acrooks 2025-05-3111:523 reply

      I wonder if some of this output will take a while to be visible en masse.

      For example, I founded a SaaS company late last year which has been growing very quickly. We are track to pass $1M ARR before the company's first birthday. We are fully bootstrapped, 100% founder owned. There are 2 of us. And we feel confident we could keep up this pace of growth for quite a while without hiring or taking capital. (Of course, there's an argument that we could accelerate our growth rate with more cash/human resources)

      Early in my career, at different companies, we often solved capacity problems by hiring. But my cofounder and I have been able to turn to AI to help with this, and we keep finding double digit percentage productivity improvements without investing much upfront time. I don't think this would have been remotely possible when I started my career, or even just a few years ago when AI hadn't really started to take off.

      So my theory as to why it doesn't appear to be "painfully obvious": you've never heard of most of the businesses getting the most value out of this technology, because they're all too small. On average, the companies we know about are large. It's very difficult for them to reinvent themselves on a dime to adapt to new technology - it takes a long time to steer a ship - so it will take a while. But small businesses like mine can change how we work today and realize the results tomorrow.

      • By AndrewKemendo 2025-06-010:03

        This is exactly how it’s going down

        Companies that needed to hire 10 people to grow, only need to hire 9 now

        In less than 5 years that’s going to be 7 or 6 people

        I’m doing more with 5 engineers than I was able to do with 15 just 10 years ago

        Part of that is libraries etc have matured too but we’ve reached the point from a developer perspective that you don’t need to build new technologies, you just need to put what exists together in new ways

        All the parts exist for any technology to be built, it’s about composition and distribution at this point

      • By mixmastamyk 2025-05-3116:021 reply

        Curious, if you don’t mind mentioning what AIs you’re using (besides the obvious Claude, etc) and what for to augment your reach?

        • By acrooks 2025-06-0210:441 reply

          I think it's important to start with identifying your bottlenecks, and work from there to determine the solutions you need. In the case of our business, I feel that my time is best spent talking to customers and prospects. These discussions directly impact revenue, retention, product strategy, etc.

          So then I start thinking ... what sort of things am I doing that take me away from talking to customers? I spend a lot of time on implementation. I spend a lot of time on administrative sales tasks (chasing people for meetings, writing proposals, negotiating contracts). I spend a lot of time on meeting prep and follow-up. And many more. So I'm always on the hunt for tools with a problem already in mind.

          In terms of specific tools...

          Claude is a great backbone for a lot. Both the chatbot but also the API. I use the chatbot to help me write proposals and review contracts. I used it to write scripting to automate our implementation process which was once quite manual and is now a button click.

          Cursor has been a game changer. In particular, it means that we spend very little time on bugfixes and small features. This keeps my CTO almost 100% focused on big picture needle-moving projects. We are now doing some research into things like Codex/Claude Code to see how we could improve this further.

          Another app that I really love is called Granola. It automatically joins all of my meetings, writes notes, reminds me what promises I made, helps me write follow-up emails, and helps me prep for meetings.

          Finally, we use an email client called Sedna (disclaimer: I used to work at Sedna) which is fully programmable. We've been building our own internal tooling (leveraging the Claude API) on top of Sedna to help automate different workflows. For example, my inbox is now perfectly prioritised. In many cases, when I receive emails from customers, an AI has already written a draft that I can review and send. I know there are a lot of out-of-the-box tools out there like Fyxer to help with things like this, but I've really appreciated the ability to get exactly what we want by building certain things ourselves.

      • By aitchnyu 2025-06-026:57

        Do existing teams (and ossified office politics) benefit from n-times faster devs? I witnessed (implied) Gantt charts so shaped that shrinking dev activities won't shrink the chart.

    • By topspin 2025-05-313:5210 reply

      "shouldn't it be painfully obvious in companies' output?"

      No.

      The bottleneck isn't intellectual productivity. The bottleneck is a legion of other things; regulation, IP law, marketing, etc. The executive email writers and meeting attenders have a swarm of business considerations ricocheting around in their heads in eternal battle with each other. It takes a lot of supposedly brilliant thinking to safely monetize all the things, and many of the factors involved are not manifest in written form anywhere, often for legal reasons.

      One place where AI is being disruptive is research: where researchers are applying models in novel ways and making legitimate advances in math, medicine and other fields. Another is art "creatives": graphic artists in particular. They're early victims and likely to be fully supplanted in the near future. A little further on and it'll be writers, actors, etc.

      • By ImaCake 2025-05-314:051 reply

        Maybe this means that LLMs are ultimately good for small buisness. If large buisness is constrained by being large and LLMs are equally accesible to 5 people or 100 then surely what we will see is increased productivity in small companies?

        • By topspin 2025-05-314:22

          My direct experience has been that even very small tech businesses contend with IP issues as well. And they don't have the means to either risk or deliberately instigate a fight.

      • By throwaway2037 2025-05-315:541 reply

            > One place where AI is being disruptive is research: where researchers are applying models in novel ways and making legitimate advances in math, medicine and other fields.
        
        Great point. The perfect example: (From Wiki):

            > In 2024, Hassabis and John M. Jumper were jointly awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their AI research contributions for protein structure prediction.
        
        AFAIK: They are talking about DeepMind AlphaFold.

        Related: (Also from Wiki):

            > Isomorphic Labs Limited is a London-based company which uses artificial intelligence for drug discovery. Isomorphic Labs was founded by Demis Hassabis, who is the CEO.

        • By SirHumphrey 2025-05-3110:091 reply

          I think AlphaFold is where current AI terminology starts breaking down. Because in some real sense, AlphaFold is primarily a statistical model - yes, it's interesting that they developed it using ML techniques, but from the use standpoint it's little different than perturbation based black boxes that were used before that for 20 years.

          Yes, it's an example of ML used in science (other examples include NN based force fields for molecule dynamics simulations and meteorological models) - but a biologist or meteorologist usually cares little how the software package they are using works (excluding the knowledge of different limitation of numerical vs statistical models).

          The whole thing "but look AI in science" seem to me like Motte-and-bailey argument to imply the use of AGI-like MLLM agents that perform independent research - currently a much less successful approach.

            • By immibis 2025-05-3121:04

              Yeah, but also AI now means LLMs and they're not LLMs.

            • By SirHumphrey 2025-06-0215:10

              Not really my point.

              I specifically didn't call LLMs a statistical model - while they technically are, it's obvious they are something more. While intelligence is a hard concept to pin down, current gen LLMs already can do most (knowledge work) based things better than most people (they are better writers than most people, they can program better than most people, they are better at math than most people, have better medical knowledge than most people...). If the human is the mark of intelligence - it has been achieved.

              Alphafold is something else though. I work with something similar (specifically FNOs for biophysical simulations) and the insight that data only models perform better than physics based model is novel - I think that the Nobel prize was deservedly awarded - however the thing is still closer to a curve fit than to LLMs regarding intelligence - or in other words, it's about as "intelligence" as permutation based black boxes were.

      • By csomar 2025-05-315:201 reply

        > where researchers are applying models in novel ways and making legitimate advances in math, medicine and other fields.

        Can you give an example, say in Medicine, where AI made a significant advancement? That is we are talking neural networks and up (ie: LLM) and not some local optimization.

      • By bawolff 2025-05-314:061 reply

        Even still, in theory this should free up more money to hire more lawyers, markerters, etc. The effect should still be there presuming the market isn't saturated with new ideas .

        • By xkcd1963 2025-05-315:221 reply

          Something else will get expensive in the meantime, e.g. it doesn't matter how much you earn, landlords will always increase rent to the limit because a living space is a basic necessity

          • By bawolff 2025-05-316:582 reply

            No, landlords will increase rent as much as they can because they like money (they call it capitalism for a reason). This is true of all goods, both essential and non-essential. All businesses follow the rule of supply and demand when setting prices or quickly go out of business.

            In the scenario being discussed - if a bunch of companies hired a whole bunch of lawyers, markerters, etc that might make salaries go up due to increased demand (but probably not super high amoung as tech isnt the only industry in the world). That still first requires companies to be hiring more of these types of people for that effect to happen, so we should still see some of the increased output even if there is a limiting factor. We would also notice the salaray of those professions going up, which so far hasn't happened.

            • By immibis 2025-06-0118:481 reply

              It's an observed effect that rent increases until everyone is just as miserable as before. Regulatory capture of the building industry might have something to do with it, but you can't just say it doesn't happen.

            • By xkcd1963 2025-05-317:431 reply

              you say no for no reason. read what I wrote again

      • By SteveNuts 2025-05-314:342 reply

        >A little further on and it'll be writers, actors, etc.

        The tech is going to have to be absolutely flawless, otherwise the uncanny-valley nature of AI "actors" in a movie will be as annoying as when the audio and video aren't perfectly synced in a stream. At least that's how I see it..

        • By Izkata 2025-05-315:404 reply

          This was made a little over a week ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/IndiaTech/comments/1ksjcsr/this_vid...

          For most of them I'm not seeing any of those issues.

          • By PeterHolzwarth 2025-05-315:581 reply

            I get what you mean, but the last year has been a story of sudden limits and ceilings of capability. The (damned impressive) video you post is a bunch of extremely brief snippets strung together. I'm not yet sure we can move substantially beyond that to something transformative or pervasively destructive.

            A couple years ago, we thought the trend was without limits - a five second video would turn into a five minute video, and keep going from there. But now I wonder if perhaps there are built in limits to how far things can go without having a data center with a billion Nvidia cards and a dozen nuclear reactors serving them power.

            Again, I don't know the limits, but we've seen in the last year some sudden walls pop up that change our sense of the trajectory down to something less "the future is just ten months away."

            • By genewitch 2025-05-3110:111 reply

              Approximately 1 second was how long AI could hold it together. If you had a lot of free time you could extend that out a bit, but it'll mess something up. So generally people who make them will run it slow-motion. This is the first clip I've seen with it at full speed.

              The quick cuts thing is a huge turnoff so if they have a 15 second clip later on, I missed it.

              When I say "1second" I mean that's what I was doing with automatic1111 a couple years ago. And every video I've seen is the same 30-60 generated frames...

          • By meander_water 2025-05-317:13

            I wonder if this is going to change the ad/marketing industry. People generally put up with shitty ads, and these will be much cheaper to produce. I dread what's coming next.

          • By IncreasePosts 2025-05-3122:00

            There might be a reason it is a series of 3 second clips

          • By techpineapple 2025-06-010:33

            I mean, it’s very uncanny valley, I would not want to watch a full movie of that. It’s so close! I mean it could be next year! Or it could be 20 years,

        • By kevinventullo 2025-06-010:14

          It does not need to be flawless. It needs to be good enough to put butts in seats.

      • By pera 2025-05-318:542 reply

        Bullshit: Chatbots are not failing to demonstrate a tangible increase in companies' output because of regulations and IP law, they are failing because they are still not good for the job.

        LLMs only exist because the companies developing them are so ridiculously powerful that can completely ignore the rule of law, or if necessary even change it (as they are currently trying to do here in Europe).

        Remember we are talking about a technology created by torrenting 82 TB of pirated books, and that's just one single example.

        "Steal all the users, steal all the music" and then lawyer up, as Eric Schmidt said at Stanford a few months ago.

      • By Teever 2025-05-3120:21

        Maybe in some industries and for some companies and their products but not all.

        Like let's take operating systems as an example. If there are great productivity gains from LLMs while aren't companies like Apple, Google and MS shipping operating systems with vastly less bugs and cleaning up backlogged user feature requests?

      • By gibbitz 2025-06-0820:57

        Don't forget that to start a company the more common goal is to make money, not to produce a good or service that others want or need including employment. Meaning this is just a lesser concern. Generally business owners are just as likely to shed quality as to shed employees as long as the profits go up. What helps to sustain this is the gradual lowering of the bar on quality that leads to consumers settling for garbage products and sending a positive signal to the business to continue. This is exacerbated by monopolistic trends in the world where only one company is providing a good or service and buying out the competition when it raises to control choice. What we end up with is similar from the consumer's viewpoint to late Communism in regards to choice and quality. In the end Capitalism didn't win. It just lost last.

      • By throwawayffffas 2025-05-3110:23

        The things you mention in the legion of other things are actually things LLMs do better than intellectual productivity. They can spew entire libraries of marketing bs, summarize decades of legal precedents and fill out mountains of red tape checklists.

        They have trouble with debugging obvious bugs though.

      • By redtaperat 2025-05-3114:04

        [flagged]

    • By throwaway2037 2025-05-315:493 reply

      Regarding the impact of LLMs on non-programming tasks, check out this one:

      https://www.ft.com/content/4f20fbb9-a10f-4a08-9a13-efa1b55dd...

          > The bank [Goldman Sachs] now has 11,000 engineers among its 46,000 employees, according to [CEO David] Solomon, and is using AI to help draft public filing documents.
      
          > The work of drafting an S1 — the initial registration prospectus for an IPO — might have taken a six-person team two weeks to complete, but it can now be 95 per cent done by AI in minutes, said Solomon.
      
          > “The last 5 per cent now matters because the rest is now a commodity,” he said.
      
      In my eyes, that is major. Junior ibankers are not cheap -- they make about 150K USD per year minimum (total comp).

      • By fourside 2025-05-3113:55

        This is certainly interesting and I don’t want to readily dismiss it, but I sometimes question how reliable these CEO anecdotes are. There’s a lot of pressure to show Wallstreet that you’re at the forefront of the AI revolution. It doesn’t mean no company is achieving great results but that it’s hard to separate the real anecdotes from the hype.

      • By asadotzler 2025-05-3120:15

        Claims by companies with an interest in AI without supporting documentation are just that, claims, and probably more PR and marketing than anything.

      • By noisy_boy 2025-06-018:46

        I mean that's such a text heavy area anyway. I am not an expert in filing S1 but won't a lot of it be more or less boilerplate + customisations specific to the offering? Any reasonably advanced model should be able to take you a good chunk of the way. Then iterate with a verifier type model + a few people to review; even with iterations that should definitely shorten the overall time. It seems like such a perfect use case for an LLM - what am I missing that is hidden in the scepticism of the sibling comments?

    • By zkry 2025-05-3114:33

      I find that this is on point. I've seen a lot of charts on the AI-hype side of things showing exponential growth of AI agent fleets being used for software development (starting in 2026 of course). Take this article for example: https://sourcegraph.com/blog/revenge-of-the-junior-developer

      Ok, so by 2027 we should be having fleets of autonomous AI agents swarming around every bug report and solving it x times faster than a human. Cool, so I guess by 2028 buggy software will be a thing of the past (for those companies that fully adopt AI of course). I'm so excited for a future where IT projects stop going overtime and overbudget and deliver more value than expected. Can you blame us for thinking this is too good to be true?

    • By hombre_fatal 2025-05-3117:161 reply

      This is like asking if tariffs are so bad, why don't you notice large price swings in your local grocer right now?

      In complex systems, you can't necessarily perceive the result of large internal changes, especially not with the tiny amount of vibes sampling you're basing this on.

      You really don't have the pulse on how fast the average company is shipping new code changes, and I don't see why you think you would know that. Shipping new public end-use features isn't even a good signal, it's a downstream product and a small fraction of software written.

      It's like thinking you are picking up a vibe related to changes in how many immigrants are coming into the country month to month when you walk around the mall.

      • By jayd16 2025-06-010:27

        Maybe not a great analogy. The market reacted instantly and you can see prices fluctuate almost as fast as tariff policy.

    • By bawolff 2025-05-314:091 reply

      Reistically its because layoffs have a high reputational cost. AI provides an excuse that lets companies do lay offs without suffering the reputation hit. In essence AI hype makes layoffs cheaper.

      Doesnt really matter if AI actually works or not.

      • By zelphirkalt 2025-05-3114:592 reply

        I would dispute, that there is no reputation cost, when you replace human work with LLMs.

        • By bawolff 2025-05-3117:12

          Sure, i don't think its none, just less.

          It also matters a bit where the reputation cost hits. Layoffs can spook investors because it makes it look like the company is doing poorly. If the reputation hit for ai is to non-investors, then it probably matters less.

        • By jayd16 2025-06-0116:56

          It's not about consumer reputation, it's about the financial reputation. Slashing headcount can look desperate. AI makes it sound innovative, or at least that's the idea.

    • By casualscience 2025-05-317:442 reply

      In big companies, this is a bit slower due to the need to migrate entrenched systems and org charts into newer workflows, but I think you are seeing more productivity there too. Where this is much more obvious is in indie games and software where small agile teams can adopt new ways of working quickly...

      E.g. look at the indie games count on steam by year: https://steamdb.info/stats/releases/?tagid=492

      • By bojan 2025-05-3111:232 reply

        The number of critically acclaimed games remains the same though. So for now we're getting quantity, but not the quality.

        • By karagenit 2025-05-3123:34

          What if the number of game critics just hasn’t increased, and since they can only play/review a fixed number of games each year due to time constraints, the number that they acclaim each year hasn’t grown? Not saying this is necessarily the case, just suggesting the possibility.

        • By casualscience 2025-06-014:01

          source?

      • By kaibee 2025-05-3123:061 reply

        Has the amount of 95%+ reviews games-released increased though? And how much of that is due to the pandemic? Its anecdotal, but the game-dev discord I'm in has had a decent reduction in # of regulars since the tail end of the pandemic 24-25. And ironically, I was one of them until recently. I think people actually just had more time.

    • By CMCDragonkai 2025-05-312:294 reply

      It's cause there are still bottlenecks. AI is definitely boosting productivity in specific areas, but the total system output is bottlenecked. I think we will see these bottlenecks get rerouted or refactored in the coming years.

      • By _heimdall 2025-05-313:06

        > AI is definitely boosting productivity in specific areas

        What makes you so sure of the productivity boost when we aren't seeing a change in output?

      • By tdeck 2025-05-312:302 reply

        What do you think the main bottlenecks are right now?

        • By CMCDragonkai 2025-05-317:41

          Informational complexity bottlenecks. So many things are shackled to human decision making loops. If we were truly serious, we would unshackle everything and let it run wild. Would be chaotic, but chaos create strange attractors.

        • By kergonath 2025-05-316:591 reply

          Quality control, for one. The state of commercial software is appalling. Writing code itself is not enough to get a useable piece of software.

          LLMs are also not very useful for long term strategy or to come up with novel features or combinations of features. They also are not great at maintaining existing code, particularly without comprehensive test suites. They are good at coming up with tests for boiler plate code, but not really for high-level features.

          • By fhd2 2025-05-318:14

            Considering how software is increasingly made out of seperate components and services, integration testing can become pretty damn difficult. So quite often, the public release is the first serious integration test.

            From my experience, this stuff is rarely introduced to save developers from typing in the code for their logic. Actual reasons I observe:

            1. SaaS sales/marketing pushing their offerings on decision makers - software being a pop culture, this works pretty well. It can be hard for internal staff to push back on What Everyone Is Using (TM). Even if it makes little to no sense.

            2. Outsourcing liability, maintenance, and general "having to think about it". Can be entirely valid, but often it indeed comes from an "I don't want to think of it" kind of place.

            I don't see this stuff slowing down GenAI or not, mainly because it has usually little to do with saving time or money.

      • By esperent 2025-05-312:321 reply

        > It's cause there are still bottlenecks

        How do you know this? What are the bottlenecks?

        • By financltravsty 2025-05-312:591 reply

          [flagged]

          • By californical 2025-05-314:171 reply

            I feel like one of us must be in a bit of our own bubble.

            The company that I work for is currently innovating very fast (not LLM related), creating so much value for other companies that they have never gotten from any other business.. I know this because when they switch to our company, they tell us how much better our software product is compared to anything they've ever used. It has tons of features that no other company has. That's all I can say without doxxing too much.

            I feel like it's unimaginative to say:

            > What more tech is there to sell besides LLM integrations?

            I have like 7 startup ideas written down in my notes app for software products that I wish I had in my life, but don't have time to work on, and can't find anything that exists for it. There is so much left to create

            • By financltravsty 2025-05-315:581 reply

              I speak only from a very high-level POV. From a lower-level/in the "trees" -- yes, I don't disagree whatsoever with your characterization that a single company can achieve that. I know of many many many products I use (tech even!) that I could create exponentially better alternatives for, as well.

              Now, there come a few considerations I don't believe you have factored in:

              - Just because your company has struck gold: does that mean that pathway is available or realistic enough for everyone else; and to a more important point, is it /significant/ enough that it can scoop the enormous amount of tech talent on the market currently and in the future? I don't believe so.

              - Segueing, "software products that I wish I had in my life." Yes, I too have many ideas, BUT: is the market (the TAM if you will) significant enough to warrant it? Ok, maybe it is -- how will you solve for distribution? Fulfillment is easy, but how are you going to not only identify prospective customers (your ICP), find them and communicate to them, and then convince them to buy your product, AND do this at scale, AND do this with low enough churn/CAC and high enough retention/CLTV, AND is this the most productive and profitable use of your time and resources?

              Again, ideas are easy -- we all have them. But the execution is difficult. In the SaaS/tech space, people are burned out from software. Everyone is shilling their vibe-coded SaaS or latest app. That market is saturated, people don't care. Consumer economy is suffering right now due to the overall economy and so on. Next avenue is enterprise/B2B -- cool, still issues: buyer fatigue; economic uncertainty leading to anemic budgets and paralysis while the "fog" clears. No one is buying -- unless you can guarantee they can make money or you can "weather the storm" (see: AI, and all the top-down AI mandates every single PE co and board is shoving down exec teams throats).

              I'm talking in very broad strokes on the most impactful things. Yes, there is much to create -- but who is going to create it and who is going to buy it (with what money?). This is a people problem, not a tech problem. I'm specifically talking about: "what more tech is there to sell -- that PEOPLE WILL BUY -- besides LLM integrations?" Again, I see nothing -- so I have pivoted towards finance and selling money. Money will not go out of fashion for a while (because people need it for the foreseeable future).

              Ask yourself, if you were fired right now at this moment: how easy would it be for you to get another job? Quite difficult unless you find yourself lucky enough to have a network of people that work in businesses that are selling things that people are buying. Otherwise, good luck. You would have more luck consulting -- there are many many many "niche" products and projects that need to be done on small scales, that require good tech talent, but have no hope of being productized or scaled (hint!).

      • By jayd16 2025-05-313:11

        We'll take cheaper over faster but is that the case? If it's not cheaper or faster what is the point?

    • By econ 2025-05-313:59

      The days of hating on idea men seem over.

      I don't get it either. You hire someone in the hope for ROI. Some things work some kinda don't. Now people will be n times more productive therefore you should hire fewer people??

      That would mean you have no ideas. It says nothing about the potential.

    • By AznHisoka 2025-05-312:332 reply

      “we'd expect to see software companies shipping features and fixes faster than ever before. There would be a huge burst in innovative products and improvements to existing products.”

      Shipping features faster != innovation or improvements to existing products

      • By tdeck 2025-05-312:562 reply

        Granting that those don't fully overlap, is that relevant to the point? I'm not seeing either.

        • By AznHisoka 2025-05-313:181 reply

          Because theyre just pushing out stuff that nobody mighy even need or want to buy. Because its not even necessarily leading to more revenue. Software companies arent factories. More stuff doesnt mean more $$$ made

          • By ngruhn 2025-05-315:04

            Unfortunately, I think it does. Even if customers don't want all that extra stuff and will never use it, it sells better.

        • By switchbak 2025-05-3117:46

          Our jobs are full of a lot more than just writing code. In my case it seems like it’s helping to accelerate a portion of the dev cycle, but that’s a fairly smart portion, say 20%, and even a big impact on that just gets dominated by the other phases that haven’t been accelerated.

          I’m not as bullish as some are on the impact of AI, but it does feel nice when you can deliver something in a fraction of the time it used to take. For me, it’s more useful as a research and idea exploration tool, less so about writing code. Part of that is that I’m in Scala land, so it just tends to not work as well as a more mainstream language.

          We haven’t used it to help the product management and solution exploration side, which seems to be a big constraint on our execution.

      • By epgui 2025-05-313:02

        And?

    • By whstl 2025-05-3119:431 reply

      Any boost of productivity in the coding part is quickly absorbed by other inefficiencies in the software-making process, unfortunately.

      AI also helps immensely in creating those other inefficiencies.

      • By klabb3 2025-05-3123:44

        Intuitively I agree. In the long run, we’ll know better. But for now, nobody truly knows what the new equilibrium is.

        That said: it’s one type of work that is getting dramatically cheaper. The debate is about the scope and quality of that labor, not whether it’s cheap or fast (it is). But if anything negative (errors, faults) compound, and the correction can NOT be done with the same tools, then you must still have humans triage errors. In my experience, bad code can already have negative value (it costs more to fix than rewrite).

        In the medium term, the actual scope and ability for different tasks will remain unknown. It takes a lot of time to gather the experience to tell if something was a bad idea – just look at the graveyard of design patterns, languages and software practices. Many of them enjoyed the spotlight for a decade before the fallout hit.

        Anyway, while the abilities are unknown, AI will be used everywhere for everything – which is only wise if it’s truly better at every general task – despite every available data about it shows vastly different ability in different domains/problem types. Many of those things will be both (a) worse than humans and (b) expensive to reverse, with compounding effects.

        The funny thing is I have already seen enthusiasts basically acknowledging this but explaining that those compounding issues (think tech debt) is the right choice now because better AI will fix those issues in the future. To me, this feels like the early formations of religion (not metaphorically even). And I have a feeling that the goalpost moving from both sides will lead to an unfalsifiability deadlock in the debate.

    • By godelski 2025-05-313:53

        > shipping features and fixes faster than ever before
      
      Meanwhile Apple duplicated my gf's contract, creating duplicate birthdays on my calendar. It couldn't find duplicates despite matching name, nickname, phone number, birthdays, and that both contacts were associated with her Apple account. I manually merged and ended up with 3 copies of her birthday in my calendar...

      Seriously, this shit can be solved with a regex...

      The number of issues like these I see is growing exponentially, not decreasing. I don't think it's AI though, because it started before that. I think these companies are just overfitting whatever silly metrics they have decided are best

    • By wcfrobert 2025-05-312:383 reply

      If AI makes everyone 10x engineers, you can 2x the productive output while reducing headcount by 5x.

      Luckily software companies are not ball bearings factories.

      • By tikhonj 2025-05-312:58

        unluckily, too many corporate managers seem to think they are :/

      • By danenania 2025-05-3115:081 reply

        > If AI makes everyone 10x engineers, you can 2x the productive output while reducing headcount by 5x.

        Why wouldn't you just 10x the productive output instead?

        • By wcfrobert 2025-05-3117:151 reply

          I don't think it would be trivial to increase demand by 10x (or even 2x) that quickly. Eventually, a publicly traded company will get a bad quarter, at which point it's much easier to just reduce the number of employees. In both scenarios, there's no need for any new-hire.

          • By danenania 2025-05-3120:261 reply

            I think there’s always demand for more software and more features. Have you ever seen a team without a huge backlog? The demand is effectively infinite.

            • By tilne 2025-06-010:081 reply

              Isn’t a lot of stuff in the backlog because it’s not important enough to the bottom line to prioritize?

      • By hoosieree 2025-06-011:31

        Or a 4-hour workweek.

    • By 0xbadcafebee 2025-05-3118:42

      Productivity results in increased profit, not necessarily output. They don't need to innovate, make new products, or improve things. They just need to make their shit cheaper so their profit margin is higher. If you can just keep churning out more money, there is no need to improve anything.

    • By kraig911 2025-05-313:12

      Effort in this equation isn't measured in man hours saved but dollars saved. We all know this is BS and isn't going to manifest this way. It's tantamount for giving framers a nailgun versus a hammer. We'll still be climbing the same rafters and doing the same work.

    • By diego_moita 2025-05-3114:191 reply

      That is a smart question.

      In 1987 the economist Robert Solow said "You can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics".

      We should remark he said this long before the internet, web and mobile, so probably the remark needs an update.

      However, I think it cuts through the salesmen hype. Anytime we see these kinds of claims we should reply "show me the numbers". I'll wait until economists make these big claims, will not trust CEOs and salesmen.

      • By marcosdumay 2025-05-3119:081 reply

        > so probably the remark needs an update

        Only if you want to add "internet, web, and mobile" before "age". Otherwise it doesn't need any change.

        But that phrase is about the productivity statistics, not about computers or actual productivity.

        • By tilne 2025-06-010:201 reply

          You’re saying that the internet, web, and mobile haven’t improved productivity?

          • By marcosdumay 2025-06-0222:03

            They didn't change a bit the productivity statistics.

            The problem with computers not changing the productivity statistics is one of the great mysteries economists argue about. It's very clear nowadays that there are problems on both the "statistics" and "productivity" sides of it, but the internet, web, and mobile didn't change anything.

    • By antithesizer 2025-05-3118:19

      Before enterprise AI systems are allowed to spread their wings, first they need to support existing processes. Once they're able to generate the same customer-facing results relatively autonomously, then they'll have the opportunity to improve those results. So the first place to look for their impact is, I'd wager, cost-cutting. So watch those quarterly earnings reports.

    • By strangattractor 2025-05-315:091 reply

      Most significant technology takes almost a generation to be fully adopted. I think it is unlikely we are seeing the full effect of LLM's at the moment.

      Content producers are blocking scrapers of their sites to prevent AI companies from using their content. I would not assume that AI is either inevitable or on a easy path to adoption. AI certainly isn't very useful if what it "knows" is out of date.

      • By asadotzler 2025-05-3120:181 reply

        In 10 years with the same amount of money and time that's been pumped into AI, still a financial black hole, we had the entire broadband internet build out completed and the internet was responsible for adding a trillion dollars a year to the global economy.

        • By tilne 2025-06-010:111 reply

          If your point is that AI/LLMs aren’t as transformative as broadband internet, I don’t think anyone here is seriously making that claim, right?

          • By chasd00 2025-06-012:04

            Maybe not here but the news and social media seems to think LLMs are even more transformative than the printing press let alone inet.

    • By JackYoustra 2025-06-010:13

      my favorite solow line "You can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics.": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_paradox

      This eventually changed. Companies do figure out how to use tech, it just takes a while.

    • By ccorcos 2025-05-312:331 reply

      AI tools seem to be most useful for little things. Fixing a little bug, making a little change. But those things aren’t always very visible or really move the needle.

      It may help you build a real product feature quicker, but AI is not necessarily doing the research and product design which is probably the bottleneck for seeing real impact.

      • By droopyEyelids 2025-05-313:042 reply

        If they're fixing all the little bugs that should give everyone much more time to think about product design and do the research.

        • By jajko 2025-05-319:191 reply

          Or a lot of small fixes all over the place. Yet in reality we dont see this anywhere, not sure what exactly that means.

          Maybe overall complexity creeping up rolls over any small gains, or devs are becoming more lazy and just copy paste llms output without a serious look at it?

          My company didnt even adapt or allow use of llms in any way for anything so far (private client data security is more important than any productivity gains, which anyway seems questionable when looking around.. and serious data breaches can end up with fines in hundreds of millions ballpark easily).

          • By ccorcos 2025-05-3120:14

            It’s also possible that all of these gains fixing bugs are simply improving infrastructure and stability rather than finding new customers and opening up new markets.

            Having worked on software infrastructure, it’s a thankless job. You’re most heroic work has little visibility and the result is that nothing catastrophic happened.

            So maybe products will have better reliability and fewer bugs? And we all know there’s crappy software that makes tons of money, so there isn’t necessarily a strong correlation.

        • By ccorcos 2025-05-313:08

          Assuming a well functioning business, yes.

    • By grumpymuppet 2025-05-313:072 reply

      The problem with this sort of analysis is that it's incremental and balanced across a large institution usually.

      I think the reality is less like a switch and more like there are just certain jobs that get easier and you just need fewer people overall.

      And you DO see companies laying off people in large numbers fairly regularly.

      • By simonsarris 2025-05-313:16

        > And you DO see companies laying off people in large numbers fairly regularly.

        Sure but, so far, too regularly to be AI-gains-driven (at least in software). We have some data on software job postings and the job apocalypse, and corresponding layoffs, coincided with the end of ultra-low interest rates. If AI had a recent effect this year or last, its quite tiny in comparison.

        https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1JmOr

        so one can argue more is to come, but its hard to see how its had a real effect on jobs/layoffs thus far.

      • By hyperadvanced 2025-05-313:16

        Layoffs happen because cash is scarce. In fact, cash is so scarce for anything that’s not “AI” that it’s basically nonexistent for startup fundraising purposes.

    • By vharish 2025-05-3117:16

      Overall, the amount of code that's being deployed to production has definitely increased.

    • By hansmayer 2025-05-3111:46

      Well, it sort of evens out. You see the developers are pushed to use the AI to generate a lot of LoC-Slop, but then they have to fix all the bugs, security issues and hallucinated packages that were thrown in by the magic-machines. But at least some deluded MBA can BS about being "AI-first".

    • By autobodie 2025-05-315:27

      No, we would see profits increase, and we have been seeing profits increase.

    • By mNovak 2025-05-3117:20

      I mean, if a mega corp like Google or Amazon had plus/minus 10% of their headcount, as a lay observer I don't think I'd really be able to detect the difference in output either.

      That doesn't mean it isn't a real productivity gain, but it might be spread across enough domains (bugs, features, internal tools, experiments) to not be immediately or "painfully obvious".

      It'll probably get more obvious if we start to see uniquely productive small teams seeing success. A sort of "vibe-code wonder".

    • By bjt12345 2025-05-312:492 reply

      The problem seems to be two-fold.

      Firstly, the capex is currently too high for all but the few.

      This is a rather obvious statement, sure. But the impact is a lot of companies "have tried language models and they didn't work", and the capex is laughable.

      Secondly, there's a corporate paralysis over AI.

      I received a panicky policy statement written in legalaise forbidding employees from using LLMs in any form. Written both out of a panic regarding intellectual property leaking but also a panic about how to manage and control staff moving forward.

      I think a lot of corporates still clutch at this view that AI will push the workforce costs down and are secretly wasting a lot money failing at this.

      The waste is extraordinary, but it's other peoples money (it's actually the shareholders money) and it's seen as being all for a good cause and not something to discuss after it's gone. I can never get it discussed.

      Meanwhile, at a grass roots level, I see AI is being embraced and is improving productivity, every second IT worker is using it, it's just that because of this corporate panicking and mismanagement, it's value is not yet measured.

      • By bawolff 2025-05-314:111 reply

        > Firstly, the capex is currently too high for all but the few.

        > This is a rather obvious statement,

        Nobody is saying companies have to make LLMs themselves.

        SASS is a thing.

        • By bjt12345 2025-05-318:331 reply

          By SAAS I assume you mean public LLMs, the problem is the hand-wringing occurring over intellectual property leaking from the company. Companies are actually writing policies banning their use.

          In regards to Private LLMs, the situation has become disappointing in the 6 months.

          I can only think of Mistral as being a genuine vendor.

          But given the limitations in context window size, fine tuning is still necessary, and even that requires capex that I rarely see.

          But my comment comes from the fact that I heard from several sources, smart people say "we tried language models at work and it failed".

          However in my discussion with them, they have no concept of the size of the datacentres used by the webscalers.

          • By singron 2025-05-3114:06

            It's not clear to me that fine-tuning is even capex. If you fine tune new models regularly, that's opex. If you mean literally just the GPUs, you would presumably just rent them right? (Either from cloud providers for small runs or the likes of sfcompute for large runs) Or do you imagine 24/7 training?

      • By tdeck 2025-05-312:582 reply

        This is a good reminder that every org is different. However some companies like Microsoft are aggressively pushing AI tools internally, to a degree that is almost cringe.

        • By throwaway2037 2025-05-316:421 reply

          I don't want to shill for LLMs-for-devs, but I think this is excellent corporate strategy by Microsoft. They are dog-fooding LLMs-for-devs. In a sense, this is R&D using real world tests. It is a product manager's dream.

          The Google web-based office productivity suite is similar. I heard a rumor that at some point Google senior mgmt said that nearly all employees (excluding accounting) must use Google Docs. I am sure that they fixed a huge number of bugs plus added missing/blocking feature, which made the product much more competitive vs MSFT Office. Fifteen years ago, Google Docs was a curiosity -- an experiment for just how complex web apps could become. Today, Google Docs is the premiere choice for new small businesses. It is cheaper than MSFT Office, and "good enough".

          • By singron 2025-05-3114:15

            Google docs has gotten a little better in that time, but it's honestly surprisingly unchanged. I think what really changed is that we all stopped wanting to layout docs for printing and became happier with the simpler feature set (along with collaboration and distribution).

        • By bjt12345 2025-05-313:30

          But this is often a mixture of these two things.

          The tools are often cringe because the capex was laughable. E.g. one solution, the trial was done using public LLMs and then they switched over to an internally built LLM which is terrible.

          Or, secondly, the process is often cringe because the corporate aims are laughable.

          I've had an argument with a manager making a multi-million dollar investment in a zero coding solution that we ended up throwing in the bin years later.

          They argued that they are going with this bad product because "they don't want to have to manage a team of developers".

          They responded "this product costs millions of dollars, how dare you?"

          How dare me indeed...

          They promptly left the company but it took 5 years before it was finally canned, and plenty of people wasted 5 years of their career on a dead-end product.

    • By ivape 2025-05-313:102 reply

      Companies are not accepting that their entire business will mostly go away. They are mostly frogs boiling in water, that's why they are kinda just incorporating these little chat bots and LLMs into their business, but the truth of the matter is it's all going away and it's impossible to believe. Take something like JIRA, it's entirely laughable because a simple LLM can handle entire project management with freaking voice with zero programming. They just don't believe that's the reality, we're talking about Kodak moment.

      Worker productivity is secondary to business destruction, which is the primary event we're really waiting for.

      • By nradov 2025-05-313:191 reply

        That's silly. You still need a way to track and prioritize tasks even if you use voice input. Jira may be replaced with something better, built around an LLM from the ground up. But the basic project management requirements will never go away.

        • By ivape 2025-05-313:254 reply

          Yes, that's quite easy. I say "Hey reorganize the tasks like-so, prioritize this, like so", and if I really need to, I can go ahead and hook up some function calls but I suspect this will be unnecessary with a few more LLM iterations (if even that). You can keep running from how powerful these LLMs are, but I'll just sit and wait for the business/startup apocalypse (which is coming). Jira will not be replaced by something better, it'll be replaced by some weekend project a high schooler makes. The very fact that it's valued at over a billion dollars in the market is just going to be a profound rug pull soon enough.

          So let me keep it real, I am shorting Atlassian over the next 5 years. Asana is another, there's plenty of startup IPOs that need to be shorted to the ground basically.

          • By petersellers 2025-05-315:271 reply

            If replacing Jira is really as easy as you claim, then it would have happened by now. At the very least, we'd be getting hit by a deluge of HN posts and articles about how to spin up your very own project management application with an LLM.

            I think that this sentiment, along with all of the hype around AI in general, is failing to grasp a lot of the complexity around software creation. I'm not just talking about writing the code for a new application - I'm talking about maintaining that application, ensuring that it executes reliably and correctly, thinking about the features and UX required to make it as frictionless as possible (and voice input isn't the solution there, I'm very confident of that).

            • By ivape 2025-05-316:372 reply

              You are not understanding what I am saying. I am saying its the calm before the storm before everyone realizes they are paying a bunch of startups for literally no comparative value given AI. First the agile people are going to get fired, then the devs are just going to go "oh yeah I just manage everything in my LLM".

              I'll be here in a year, we can have this exact discussion again.

          • By zelphirkalt 2025-05-3115:40

            If there was only one consequence, and that consequence is Jira and Atlassian being destroyed, then I am all for it!

            Realistically though, they might incorporate that high schooler's software into Jira, to make it even more bloated and they will sell it to your employer soon enough! Then team lead Chris will enter your birthday and your vacation days in it too, to enable it to also do vacation planning, without asking you. Next thing is, that Atlassian sells you out and you receive unsolicited AI calls for your holiday planning.

          • By hooverd 2025-05-314:142 reply

            What sort of assurances can I get from that weekend project? I think we're going to build even more obscene towers of complexity as nobody knows how anything works anymore, because they choose not to.

            • By ivape 2025-05-315:071 reply

              What assurances do you get from the internals of an LLM?

            • By bdangubic 2025-05-3119:49

              this is a choice to make though… smart teams will know how everything works…

          • By subpixel 2025-05-3114:22

            I agree with you to a point.

            In smaller businesses some roles won’t need to be hired anymore.

            Meanwhile in big corps, some roles may transition from being the source of presumed expertise to being one neck to choke.

            I’d love it not to be true, but the truth is Jira is to projects what Slack/Teams are to messaging. When everybody is a project manager Jira gets paid more, not less.

      • By badsectoracula 2025-05-316:501 reply

        > Take something like JIRA, it's entirely laughable because a simple LLM can handle entire project management with freaking voice with zero programming

        When I used a not-so-simple LLM to make it act as a text adventure game it could barely keep track of the items in my inventory, so TBH i am a little bit skeptical that an LLM can handle entire project management - even without voice.

        Perhaps it might be able to use tools/MCP/RPC to call out to real project management software and pretend to be your accountant/manager/whoever, but i wouldn't call that the LLM itself doing the project management task - and someone would need to write that project management software.

        • By ivape 2025-05-317:101 reply

          There are innovative ways to accomplish the consistency you seek for the example application you mentioned. They are coming a lot sooner than you think, but hey this thread is a bit of a poker game before the flop, I’m just placing my bet - you can call the bluff.

          We just have to wait for the cards to flip, and that’s happening on a quadratic curve (some say exponential).

          • By mucha 2025-06-014:55

            Free beer tomorrow.

    • By marcosdumay 2025-05-3118:49

      I don't think extra productivity in software development ever reflected in established companies building things faster.

      The more likely scenario is that if those tools make developer so much more productive, we would see a large surge in new companies, with 1 to 3 developers creating things that were deemed too hard for them to do.

      But it's still possible that we didn't give people enough time yet.

    • By wiseowise 2025-05-316:401 reply

      I will never understand this argument. If you have a super tool, that can magically double your output, why would you suddenly double your output publicly? So that you now work twice essentially for the same money? You use it to work less, your output stays static or marginally improves - that’s smart play.

      Note: I’m talking about your run of the mill SE waggie work, not startups where your food is based on your output.

      • By conradkay 2025-05-317:191 reply

        That only works if you're one of very few people with the tool. Otherwise the rest of your team is now 2x as productive as you.

        • By wiseowise 2025-05-318:041 reply

          That’s assuming they were as productive as me in the first place.

          • By imtringued 2025-05-318:351 reply

            How would you know? What if they are following your strategy and are hiding their "power level"?

            • By wiseowise 2025-05-3119:09

              If they were hiding their "power level" and maintaining my or pre my "power level", what incentive do they have to suddenly double it if they were hiding it in the first place?

HackerNews