Comment by overgard
2 days ago
Anecdotally, I (along with the rest of my team) got laid off from a big tech company at the end of January. The stated reason was "AI", although I think as we all know the real reason was "we overhired in 2022". I managed to get a job by April without putting in a lot of work, though (mostly just listened to recruiters until something hit my fancy). My work experience is good, but I don't know if it's so good that I would be immune to market effects. The company that hired me is still hiring other software developers, and I was told that it took them a long time to find someone with my qualifications. (We use Claude, although so far I haven't seen a lot of AI psychosis like I have in other places.. that was also a big filter in my job search). Long story short, I think narrative of job loss is way overblown. It's more doom trolling from anthropic and openAI and their mouth pieces as far as I can tell.
>Long story short, I think narrative of job loss is way overblown.
Long story short, I ate dinner so I think the narrative of people over the world being hungry is way overblown.
How many studies do we need showing that AI isn't causing massive job loss before you'll believe it? This isn't the first one showing these results.
I won't believe in it, because I have seen it happen in agency work.
What used to be contracts for translations or asset creations for CMS projects, is now handled by the AI tooling of CMS products.
The adoption of SaaS, iPaaS and serverless, meant delivery projects could be done with smaller teams.
Now with iPaaS adoption of agentic workflows, and AI tooling to transform those serverless actions into MCP tools, the team sizes have been further reduced.
Most agencies aren't winning enough projects to justify those that land on bench.
1 reply →
> I managed to get a job by April without putting in a lot of work
Congrats! Probably, you have the blessing of luck as well. One of my ex-colleagues got laid off and managed to find an uplevel job within a month, but another has been looking for almost 2 years now. He showed me that most of the jobs he applied to over the past two-ish years are still open, while they rejected him by saying the usual - we are moving forward with the candidates more aligned with the position.
Same experience. I’m based in Western Europe.
It's so early game, is the real problem. My experience so far, has been that it's barely a junior dev. I've met so many in my career that think reading stackoverflow, or watching a youtube video mysteriously makes them an expert. AI reminds me of this sort.
Well anyone can use (prior to AI) a simple linter and learning to code isn't that big a deal. It's learning the pitfalls, the traps, that's the issue. And so far Opus just seems to fall into them again and again. I guess the best way to put it, is that it's not an architect. I sees no big picture, and that's not really a surprise with (compared to a human) an incredibly small context window. When I'm on a project, or working with a codebase, I often have years of "context window". And I have a career of "don't do this" context window.
So what I wonder is, will this be resolved? Will that awareness of larger scope be solved? If that happens, we'll be in another ballpark of competency.
Some companies have massive codebases. Are these companies slowly gaining rot in those codebases, a swiss cheese effect, which eventually will result in collapse? Because I've worked where a bad hire had just this effect over time. And what I worry about isn't using Claude to speed one up, it's the DEV that uses Claude and just "meh" and submits because it passes regression + other tests, and then a manager or code reviewer uses Claude and "meh" because it's a pass too.
> My experience so far, has been that it's barely a junior dev.
At least on greenfield projects, Fable is more like having an endless succession of fly-by senior devs who lock themselves in an office for a week, and who come back with very reasonable code that I then need to maintain somehow.
For longer-term maintenance, I am actually slowly warming to Sonnet 4.5-era models (so October 2025, right before the Opus revolution). They need to be given clear instructions and watched carefully. But since they force a human to stay in the loop, you don't have the institutional knowledge loss I see in some Opus projects, or the code that was one-shot with no human interaction at all that's a constant temptation in Fable projects.
And yeah, the bit rot is painfully real once the humans step back too far. I've been dealing with a compelling prototype that someone built, and that stakeholders love (for good reasons). But it had to be put on a tech debt repayment plan for a couple of months.
> Are these companies slowly gaining rot in those codebases?
Yes!
And that "yes" holds regardless of whether they use AI or not.
Let's not pretend tech debt accumulation is somehow an AI problem. Some of the world's biggest companies routinely ship code that reeks of years of rot and decay.
It's safe to say that most people romanticize their past experience. Anyone's "golden age" is someone else's "end times".
Software has always sucked [1]. "Software crisis" was coined in 1968. There has been no period of time since that it got any better. Trauma just doesn't carry the same way that triumphs do.
Perhaps people do not actually learn from their mistakes after all.
[1]: https://www.stilldrinking.org/programming-sucks
1 reply →
> Let's not pretend tech debt accumulation is somehow an AI problem. Some of the world's biggest companies routinely ship code that reeks of years of rot and decay.
While that is true, there's a large difference you are ignoring: a company can survive this type of rot indefinitely if it takes place at a certain rate. Their customers get time to acclimatise , the processes take into account the breakage, and adapt to compensate, etc.
If the AI boosters are to be believed (2x, or 10x or even, in some cases, devs claiming 100x productivity), stuffing 2 decades of rot into the next two years could prove fatal.
1 reply →
This is usually due to time pressure and cost. AI arguably substantially reduces that kind of pressure.
I’m overall skeptical as well, but the argument about tech debt is more nuanced than your comment implies.
3 replies →
I have seen a bad hire having instant impact on team and after person was let go, team was still getting back on track to pre-hire productivity for another 3 months.
We know all managers that say "stack doesn't matter, we can swap devs". We had C/C++ dev hired to do web dev with C# and Typescript.
Guy was utterly incompatible even if he was smart but management wanted someone who is local and can come to the office and that was this guy selling point.