[prymitive]

It’s not like this is a factory floor where you process something coming in and AI suddenly makes the process more efficient and people are idle. Every team in tech world has infinite backlog, you don’t fire 20% the minute someone manages to close a few tickets.

[Marsymars]

> Every team in tech world has infinite backlog

I have non-tech friends who struggle to understand this, because they literally clear their entire backlog of work every single day they're at work.

[swyx]

then they basically don't do knowledge work

[Marsymars]

Some of them yeah, they do jobs involving physical work, but some of them are office works — their jobs/companies are just set up so that they've got a defined set of tasks/responsibilities, and they're able to complete them all every day. (Or some/most days.)

They find the idea of an infinite task queue horrifying.

[benmusch]

why not? isn't the implication of your point that companies should just hire infinitely so long as there's work to be done?

[ok_dad]

Companies never want to reduce productivity unless they need to cut spending or increase profits. In other words, if AI increases productivity that’s a direct win they can use to beat their competitors. You can’t spend money you don’t have, but you want to spend the money you do have as point at there work to do, which there always is.

[benmusch]

> unless they need to cut spending or increase profits

yes, so basically always? the situations where companies don't want to do this are very rare.

I understand your broader point that doubling down on productive things is useful. But there's no limiting principle to that idea.

The obvious reality is that businesses are trying to find a sweet spot between expenses and productivity. It's not always the case that slashing spending is worth it. But it's equally naive to act like being able to do more with less shouldn't make you want... less