[atomicnumber3]

Sure, naturally. And yet parent commenter is remarking that simultaneously no AI-true-believer startups have supplanted the old money, and simultaneously despite much talk the bigcos have not slashed headcount to tiny AI-powered teams.

[ffsm8]

Hmm, isn't that just down to the fact people always vastly underestimate the amount of work software takes?

It takes a lot of time to successfully deliver a product. Even at the more "extreme" end of expectation - like saying it's a X10 multiplier (I'd disagree on that, it's more like 0.5-3 - depending on the type of work you're working on) you'd still need multiple years to go from first line of code to displacing established players. Things just don't change that fast.

[1attice]

Depends on the bigco IMO. I'm not sure what kind of layoff numbers for Year Three of genAI would grab your attention, but I assure you, hundreds of thousands have mine.

[root_axis]

The layoffs started years before LLMs became practical coding tools.

[1attice]

So you're saying companies correctly estimated the need to cut staff to remain competitive and did so -- or at least, some state of affairs empirically indistinguishable from this. Not much of an argument, sorry to say