Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by weird-eye-issue 209 days ago
Yeah since there isn't any actual real spend going into AI...
2 comments

I don't think many of us are questioning the real spend going into AI - it's the return on that spend that we're wondering about.
There is pretty concrete published data that shows trends in less hiring for roles that are easily replaced by AI such as content writers and front-end developers

Personally I let go a developer I was using because I only had them around for front end work and now I'm much more productive just doing that with Claude Code directly

So the returns for the average business are largely due to less employee and contractors spending

> There is pretty concrete published data that shows trends in less hiring

Is there any concrete evidence that lower hiring is due to AI, and not due to some other factor - such as a stalling economy? I suspect AI growth is the only thing currently staving off a full-blown recession.

I alluded to it in my comment but let me make it even more clear

There is significantly less hiring for roles that AI can replace easily compared to roles that it can't replace easily

If there was decreased hiring simply because of the economy then why would it only be impacting certain job roles? Hmm... Mystery...

Have you given thought to the fact that there is an overlap between "jobs easily replaced by AI" and "jobs that are easy to consolidate into existing roles", or even "non-essential jobs"?
> jobs that are easy to consolidate into existing roles

I think you are on to something here. AI is what gives people the ability to consolidate many roles into one.

Like in my example, when I fired my front-end developer, I now can easily do that task.

Or, a marketing generalist can now create blog posts using ChatGPT instead of needing to also have a content writer

To your point about "non-essential": "Front-end development" is not necessarily something I would consider non-essential, but maybe "front-end developer" is now. Something to think about

There is money going in, but not as much as what these valuations and investments imply. The numbers are inflated and that's common knowledge by this point.
> that's common knowledge by this point.

No it's not. Go short the AI companies though if that's what you think

The circular deals going on are documented. There is no point in discussing if this happens or not. The numbers just cannot be added up.

Now if things will fail, how and when is a different discussion.

Two things can be true

Yes there are circular deals going

Yes there is actual underlying spending from the average consumer and business that makes these valuations largely realistic