[al_borland]

I did see a take from someone (it may have been Alan Kay, but I could be misremembering) who said no one should layoff programmers due to AI. If AI makes programmers more productive, and everyone is getting it, they will need everyone to keep up with the competition.

2 seniors + AI may be able to have the same output at the 2 seniors + 6 juniors you mention. But if their competitors keep all those people and add AI, will they accelerate past the company when the layoffs by moving faster? Cost savings aren’t so great if they are at the expensive of remaining competitive in the market and retaining customers.

This is the perspective I hope takes hold. I think the layoffs you mentioned from Intel and IBM were very premature, if AI was the only basis for them.

[packetlost]

AI was absolutely not the basis for the layoffs at Intel, they are doing bad full stop. I don't know enough about IBM, but I strongly suspect that one is more influenced by macroeconomic conditions and general slowing down of the economy than anything else and AI is the convenient excuse to point to.

> If AI makes programmers more productive, and everyone is getting it, they will need everyone to keep up with the competition.

This assumes that there's competition. When money is expensive to borrow, companies stop throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks, they start being more conservative with where they expend their capital. Efficiency will absolutely be the name of the game for 2-3 of the next 5 years. I don't really see AI being a huge part of it. Writing code doesn't take up the majority of my time as a senior engineer.

[smegsicle]

jevons paradox