←back to thread

Salesforce CEO Claims Half of the Company's Work Is Now Done by AI

(gizmodo.com)
38 points 01-_- | 5 comments | 27 Jun 25 07:43 UTC | HN request time: 0.771s | source
Show context
ssivark ◴[27 Jun 25 11:58 UTC] No.44396070[source]▶
If I have decent autocomplete where I type half the characters and the AI predicts the other half that technically satisfies this metric.

Notice the loophole: there’s no qualification of how much problem context the AI started from. Most of the problem -> code “work” would still be done by a human in that situation — even if technically 50% of the code is “AI generated” [because the human did all the hard work of generating the context necessary for those tokens, including the preceding tokens of code].

As the saying goes… lies, damned lies, and statistics.

replies(3): >>44396426 #>>44397536 #>>44399676 #
1. AndrewKemendo ◴[27 Jun 25 15:26 UTC] No.44397536[source]▶
> there’s no qualification of how much problem context the AI started from

Infer it from the article:

“as much as 30% to 50% of the company’s work is now completed by AI”

There. That’s not nothing.

You can and should call bs on all corporate claims, but this idea that coding agents at scale don’t work or is just total fluff is just wrong.

What I’m seeing is that people over 25 who like to write code and have spent their lives “perfecting” their environment and code generation process, can’t stand that businesses prefer lower quality code that’s created faster and cheaper than their “perfect” code.

Software engineers (and engineers generally) are closer economically to day laborers than theoretical physicists - but we/they refuse to believe that.

This is why unionization matters but you can’t unionize divas until they actually start losing jobs.

replies(3): >>44397811 #>>44399236 #>>44400143 #
2. belter ◴[27 Jun 25 15:57 UTC] No.44397811[source]▶
AI is the intern now, still does 50% of the work, nobody trusts it with anything important, gets praised by the CEO for “transforming the business.” :-)
replies(1): >>44398660 #
3. riku_iki ◴[27 Jun 25 17:31 UTC] No.44398660[source]▶
Many humans can't be trusted with important work too, that's why we have all job interviewing and performance review processes, which are messy, costly and inefficient.

With AI, companies can built some rigid analytics/tests/benchmarks, which could be used at scale.

4. pier25 ◴[27 Jun 25 18:50 UTC] No.44399236[source]▶
It's not about perfect code but maintainable code that can be debugged when (not if) things go wrong.
5. tuckerman ◴[27 Jun 25 20:55 UTC] No.44400143[source]▶
The big question is the work in question conceived of, designed, scoped, and then 30% to 50% of the doc/code written by a human and then finished by AI or is there some 30% to 50% of the work where all of that was owned by the AI.

Both are useful, but the former situation is one that just makes good engineers more useful/in demand imho.