[_bin_]

As I see it, it's actually the only safe bet.

Case 1: you keep training engineers.

Case 1.1: AGI soon, you don't need juniors or seniors besides a very few. You cost yourself a ton of money that competitors can reinvest into R&D, use to undercut your prices, or return to keep their investors happy.

Case 1.2: No AGI. Wages rise, a lot. You must remain in line with that to avoid losing those engineers you trained.

Case 2: You quit training juniors and let AI do the work.

Case 2.1: AGI soon, you have saved yourself a bundle of cash and remain mostly in in line with the market.

Case 2.2: no AGI, you are in the same bidding war for talent as everyone else, the same place you'd have been were you to have spent all that cash to train engineers. You now have a juicier balance sheet with which to enter this bidding war.

The only way out of this, you can probably see, is some sort of external co-ordination, as is the case with most of these situations. The high-EV move is to quit training juniors, by a mile, independently of whether AI can replace senior devs in a decade.

[majormajor]

Case 1.3: No AGI, tools increase productivity a lot, you have a bigger team and you make them more productive. In the meantime, while everyone else was scared of hiring, you got a bunch of stuff done to gain a lead in the market.

You get high EV because everyone else in your market voluntarily slowing down is a gift-wrapped miracle for you.

(Even in an AGI-soon case - you spent a bit more (let's be serious here, we're not talking about spending our entire bankroll on 18months of new hires here) in short term to get ahead, then you shift people around or lay them off. Your competitors invested that money into R&D? What does that even mean if it didn't involve hiring and AGI happens soon anyway?)

----

(Case 3: AGI soon, you don't need yourself anymore - it's hard to imagine a sufficiently advanced "AGI" that someone only replaces software devs but leaves the structure, management, and MBA-trappings of modern exchange and businesses alone.)

[eru]

> The only way out of this, you can probably see, is some sort of external co-ordination, as is the case with most of these situations.

You lack imagination. You can eg just charge juniors for the training.

Either directly (which won't really work, because juniors almost by definition don't have a lot of money), or via a bond that they have to pay back iff they jump ship before a set number of years.

Have a look at how airlines and airline pilots pay for their expensive education.

[lmm]

> Case 1.2: No AGI. Wages rise, a lot. You must remain in line with that to avoid losing those engineers you trained.

No you don't. Most engineers are shy, conflict-averse, and hate change. You can keep underpaying them and most of them will stay.

[eru]

Yes, but only up to a point.

[al_borland]

You’re looking at it from the point of view of an individual company. I’m seeing it as a risk for the entire industry.

Senior engineers are already very well paid. Wages rising a lot from where they already are, while companies compete for a few people, and those who can’t afford it need to lean on AI or wait 10+ years for someone to develop with equivalent expertise… all of this sounds bad for the industry. It’s only good for the few senior engineers that are about to retire, and the few who went out of their way to not use AI and acquire actual skills.

[jgilias]

Well, yes. But nobody is running the entire industry. You’re running a company that has competitors willing to eat your lunch.

[spongebobstoes]

An interesting thing to consider is that Codex might get people to be better at delegating, which might improve the effectiveness of hiring junior engineers. Because the senior engineers will have better skills at delegating, leading to a more effective collaboration.