> In the HR department, entry-level staffers now spend time intervening when HR chatbots fall short, correcting output and talking to managers as needed, rather than fielding every question themselves.

The job is essentially changing from "You have to know what to say, and say it" to "make sure the AI says what you know to be right"

Tripling entry-level hiring is a good plan.

> Some executives and economists argue that younger workers are a better investment for companies in the midst of technological upheaval.

Is this for their in-house development or for their consulting services?

Because the latter would still be indicative of AI hurting entry level hiring since it may signal that other firms are not really willing to hire a full time entry level employee whose job may be obsoleted by AI, and paying for a consultant from IBM may be a lower risk alternative in case AI doesn't pan out.

With the workforce may happen like with DRAM and NAND flash memories: unexpected demand in one side leaving without enough offer in other sides.

Probably not on the IBM jobs site yet, where the number of entry level jobs is low compared to the size of the company (~250k):

https://www.ibm.com/careers/search?field_keyword_18[0]=Entry...

Total: 240

United States: 25

India: 29

Canada: 15

Interesting given the current age discrimination lawsuit:

https://www.cohenmilstein.com/case-study/ibm-age-discriminat...

[dupe] Earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46995146

Bold move.

Not because it's wrong, but because it risks initiating the collapse of the AI bubble and the whole "AI is gonna replace all skilled work, any day now, just give us another billion".

Seems like IBM can no longer wait for that day.

"software engineers will spend less time on routine coding—and more on interacting with customers"

Ahh, what could possibly go wrong!

Perhaps I'm being cynical, but could they be leaving out some detail? Perhaps they're replacing even more older workers with entry level workers than before? Maybe the AI makes the entry level workers just as good-- and much cheaper.

Interesting signal from IBM. The "AI will replace all junior devs" narrative never accounted for the fact that you still need humans who understand the business domain, can ask the right questions, and can catch when the AI is confidently wrong. Turns out institutional knowledge doesn't just materialize from a model — you need people learning on the job to build it.

The title is a bit misleading. Reading the article, the argument seems to be that entry-level applicants (are expected to) have the highest AI literacy, so they want them to drive AI adoption.

IBM has cut ~8,000 jobs in the past year or so.

Sounds like business as usual to me, with a little sensationalization.

The title could be dead wrong; the tripling of junior jobs might not be due to the limits of AI, but because of AI increasing the productivity of juniors to that of a mid or senior (or at least 2-3x-ing the output of juniors), thus making hiring juniors an appealing prospect to increase the company's output relative to competitors who aren't hiring in response to AI tech improvements. Hope this is the case and hope it happens across broadly across the economy. While the gutter press fear mongers of job losses, if AI makes the average employee much more useful (even if its via newly created roles), it's conceivable there's a jobs/salaries boom, including among those who 'lose their job' and move into a new one!

They hire juniors, give them Claude Code and some specs and save a mid/senior devs salary. I believe coding is over for SWE's by end of 2027, but will take time to diffuse though the economy hence still need some cheap labour for a few years, given the H1-B ban this is one way without offshoring.

I realized the AI replacing developers hype was all hype after watching this.

Why Replacing Developers with AI is Going Horribly Wrong https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WfjGZCuxl-U&pp=ygUvV2h5IHJlcGx...

A bunch of big companies took big bets on this hype and got burned badly.