[2001zhaozhao]

> 1 will hit the jackpot and get a 100M ARR company with 4 people.

I will point out that at the point where you get an 100M ARR it seems worth it to hire more people regardless.

But I'm guessing that the bar to be hired will be EXTREMELY high, because IMO the best people to hire people in future heavy-AI-automation-era would be basically founder-level visionary leaders who are also subject matter experts who can consistently make good decisions, and giving them 1M+ salaries in exchange.

If you have 100M ARR you can probably afford like 30 of these employees (and the probably exorbitant recruiting fees required to find them) and have them command AI all day. So your company will be extremely small in headcount but still more than 4 people.

(oh and how will this affect wealth inequality? i prefer to not think about it)

[camillomiller]

I love this little utopian scenarios that make HN average users wet because they relentlessly avoid considering the core issues with mid to long term AI sustainability. Namely, dependence on external models, fucked up model costs subsidization, financial exposure to a downturn that could negatively affect the core product (models). Yet this is the inevitable future and if you dare raising concern you’re a luddite. Man what have we come too

[ethbr1]

Also implied in that scenario: mass unemployment and wealth concentration