←back to thread

Entry-level jobs down by a third since launch of ChatGPT

(www.personneltoday.com)
120 points lsharkey602 | 9 comments | 30 Jun 25 11:38 UTC | HN request time: 1.04s | source | bottom
Show context
reedf1 ◴[30 Jun 25 13:47 UTC] No.44423223[source]▶
I think it is possible that the widespread introduction of ChatGPT will cause a brief hiatus on hiring due to the inelasticity of demand. For the sake of argument, imagine that ChatGPT makes your average developer 4x more productive. It will take a while before the expectation becomes that 4x more work is delivered. That 4x more work is scheduled in sprints. That 4x more features are developed. That 4x more projects are sold to clients/users. When the demand eventually catches up (if it exists), the hiring will begin again.
replies(9): >>44423267 #>>44423282 #>>44423301 #>>44423329 #>>44423440 #>>44423459 #>>44423688 #>>44423878 #>>44424258 #
ai-christianson ◴[30 Jun 25 13:52 UTC] No.44423282[source]▶
We just shipped a major feature on our SaaS product. We, of course, used AI extensively.

The thing is, this feature leaned on every bit of experience and wisdom we had as a team --things like making sure the model is right, making sure the system makes sense overall and all the pieces fit together properly.

I don't know that "4x" is how it works --in this case, the AI let us really tap into the experience and skill we already had. It made us faster, but if we were missing the experience and wisdom part, we'd just be more prolific at creating messes.

replies(1): >>44423438 #
1. MajimasEyepatch ◴[30 Jun 25 14:04 UTC] No.44423438[source]▶
But presumably you could have built it before, just slower, which is the point. For now, that speed-up just looks like a win because it’s novel, but eventually the speed-up will be baked into people’s expectations.
replies(2): >>44423482 #>>44423751 #
2. ai-christianson ◴[30 Jun 25 14:08 UTC] No.44423482[source]▶
Right, I'm just pointing out that if you're "never going to get there anyway," then going 4x faster isn't going to help.
replies(1): >>44423731 #
3. lazide ◴[30 Jun 25 14:25 UTC] No.44423731[source]▶
The biggest issue at most companies is making a lot of heat and noise while not actually delivering effectively, so I expect AI to make this problem worse.

Usually, companies benefit more from slowing down and prioritizing, not ‘going faster’.

4. eru ◴[30 Jun 25 14:27 UTC] No.44423751[source]▶
> For now, that speed-up just looks like a win because it’s novel, but eventually the speed-up will be baked into people’s expectations.

It will still be a win: the rewards for the new productivity have to go somewhere in the economy.

Just like other productivity improvements in the past, it will likely be shared amongst various stakeholders depending on a variety of factors. The workers will get the lion's share.

replies(2): >>44424300 #>>44424643 #
5. bluefirebrand ◴[30 Jun 25 15:10 UTC] No.44424300[source]▶
> rewards for the new productivity have to go somewhere in the economy

Unless it goes to me I'm not entirely sure why I should care

I'll keep doing things the old way thanks, unless I personally get some benefit from it

"You are more productive but compensated the same" just shows how many of you are suckers

replies(1): >>44424633 #
6. eru ◴[30 Jun 25 15:41 UTC] No.44424633{3}[source]▶
Compare and contrast https://pseudoerasmus.com/2017/10/02/ijd/
7. layer8 ◴[30 Jun 25 15:41 UTC] No.44424643[source]▶
> The workers will get the lion's share.

This doesn’t seem to be supported by history.

replies(1): >>44424759 #
8. eru ◴[30 Jun 25 15:53 UTC] No.44424759{3}[source]▶
Labour share have GDP has held roughly constant throughout the ages, even as we saw massive productivity increases since the dawn of the industrial revolution.
replies(1): >>44425373 #
9. layer8 ◴[30 Jun 25 16:49 UTC] No.44425373{4}[source]▶
How does that equate to the workers receiving the lion's share of the massive productivity increases?

Statistics like https://media.equality-trust.out.re/uploads/2024/07/incomedi... suggest that since 1970 the top 10% have profited more in their income than the bottom 50%.