Comment by alex43578
6 days ago
There’s a middle road where AI replaces half the juniors or entry level roles, the interns and the bottom rung of the org chart.
In marketing, an AI can effortlessly perform basic duties, write email copy, research, etc. Same goes for programming, graphic design, translation, etc.
The results will be looked over by a senior member, but it’s already clear that a role with 3 YOE or less could easily be substituted with an AI. It’ll be more disruptive than spell check, clearly, even if it doesn’t wipe it 50% of the labor market: even 10% would be hugely disruptive.
I think you're really overstating things here. Entry level positions are the tier at which replacement of senior positions happen. They don't do a lot, sure, but they are cheap and easily churnable. This is precisely NOT the place companies focus on for cutbacks or downsizing. AI being acceptable at replacing unskilled labor doesn't mean it WILL replace it. It has to make business sense to implement it.
If they're cheap and churnable, they're also the easiest place to see substitution.
Pre-AI, Company A hired 3 copywriters a year for their marketing team. Post-AI, they hire 1 who manages some prompting and makes some spot-tweaks, saving $80K a year and improving the turnaround time on deliverables.
My original comment isn't saying the company is going to fire the 3 copywriters on staff, but any company looking at hiring entry-level roles for tasks that AI is already very good at would be silly to not adjust their plans accordingly.
I mean you're half right. Companies seek to automate some of their transactional labor and reduce their overall head count, but they also want a pool of low paid labor to rotate when they do layoffs, which are usually focused on the highest paid slices of the labor chain.
There's a couple issue with LLMs. The first is that by structure they make a lot of mistakes and any work they do must be verified, which sometimes takes longer than the actual work itself, and this is especially true in compliance or legal contexts. The second is the cost. If a company has a choice to outsource transactional labor to Asia for $3 an hour or spend millions on AI tokens, they will pick Asia every single time. The first constraint will never be overcome. The second has to be overcome before AI even becomes a relevant choice, and the opposite is actually happening. $ per kwh is not scaling like expected.
My prediction is that LLMs will replace some entry level positions where it makes sense, but the vast majority of the labor pool will not be affected. Rather, AI might become a tool for humans to use in certain specific contexts.
Not really though:
1. Companies like savings but they’re not dumb enough to just wipe out junior roles and shoot themselves in the foot for future generations of company leaders. Business leaders have been vocal on this point and saying it’s terrible thinking.
2. In the US and Europe the work most ripe for automation and AI was long since “offshored” to places like India. If AI does have an impact it will wipe out the India tech and BPO sector before it starts to have a major impact on roles in the US and Europe.
1) Companies are dumb enough to shoot themselves in the foot over a single quarter's financials - they certainly aren't thinking about where their middle management is going to come from in 5 or 10 years.
2) There's plenty of work ripe for automation that's currently being done by recent US grads. I don't doubt offshored roles will also be affected, but there's nothing special about the average entry-level candidate from a state school that'll make them immune to the same trends.
To think companies worry about protecting the talent supply chain is to put your fingers in your ears and ignore your eyes for the past 5-10 years. We were already in a crisis of seniority where every single role was “senior only” and AI is only going to increase that.
I actually think the opposite will happen. Suddenly, smart AI-enabled juniors can easily match the productivity of traditional (or conscientious) seniors, so why hire seniors at all?
If you are an exec, you can now fire most of your expensive seniors and replace them with kids, for immediate cash savings. Yeah, the quality of your product might suffer a bit, bugs will increase, but bugs don't show up on the balance sheet and it will be next year's problem anyway, when you'll have already gone to another company after boasting huge savings for 3 quarters in a row.
1 reply →
1. Sure they will! It's a prisoner's dilemma. Each individual company is incentivized to minimize labor costs. Who wants to be the company who pays extra for humans in junior roles and then gets that talent poached away?
2 Yes, absolutely.
The cost of juniors have dropped enough where it's viable now.
You can get decent grads from good schools for $65k.
As far as 1 goes, how do you explain American deindustrilization and e. g. its auto industry.