logoalt Hacker News

skinfaxitoday at 1:02 PM8 repliesview on HN

The point is if a worker plus AI can do the work of two workers without AI, then why not keep both workers and have them both use AI to have the equivalent of four non-assisted workers?


Replies

apothegmtoday at 1:06 PM

Because you don’t have enough work that really needs doing, at least in that particular area. You cut engineers because the bottleneck to increased revenue isn’t software features or bugs, it’s marketing/sales; human beings’ limited attention for which there is now more competition than ever; and customers’ available funds.

ETA: this is sometimes (though not always) very different for a mature company than an early stage startup.

show 1 reply
thfurantoday at 1:08 PM

Because the entire structure of the business is designed for approximately the amount of work it currently does and likely has no particular immediate use for twice as much work in most departments.

show 1 reply
csoups14today at 1:20 PM

I think you're viewing this from the perspective of someone who has a functioning brain and plentiful concepts and ideas that aren't being built because you're labour-constrained. Companies like Meta simply don't have productive uses for all of that human + AI labour. Meta spends tens of billions a year paying people to throw shit at the wall and see what sticks. If the idea well you're going to is running dry, AI with a smaller number of humans can slop out the stuff you do want to build more efficiently is their implicit argument, especially when you don't care about quality (as is the case with Meta). Layoffs are also being used to tell a story around efficiency to investors while companies wait for the billions they're plowing in AI actually show profit.

bregmatoday at 2:33 PM

If one woman can produce a baby on 9 months, why can't you get 9 women pregnant and produce a baby in one month?

yababa_ytoday at 1:16 PM

There's only so much to do and coordination costs (already burdensome) become overwhelming.

LogicFailsMetoday at 1:33 PM

Except that comforting C-suite narrative does not reflect reality. 2026 agents both increase productivity by knocking clearly specified but error-prone and tedious tasks out of the park whilst simultaneously vexing and annoying their users with hallucinations and downright lies on tasks with intrinsic ambiguity. This is made worse by the token providers with their constant tweaks to their deployments to cut costs w/o losing accuracy which flat doesn't work out well for the end user.

avereveardtoday at 1:27 PM

The demand doesn't necessarily double.

asdfologisttoday at 1:08 PM

Diminishing returns on additional labor.

show 1 reply