Another way of increasing profit is to simply reduce your headcount by 90% while keeping the same profit.*

Hence, I think some companies will keep downsizing. Some companies will hire. It depends a lot.

*Assuming 90% productivity increase.

Terafab is suddenly making so much sense!

you hire more if you are growth and have new ideas just never had the chance to implement them as they were not practical of feasible at that level of tech (non-assisted humans clicking code and taking sick leaves)

Remember sometimes the most productive thing to have is not money or people but time with your ideas.

Seniors can adjust, but eg. junior frontend-only devs might be doomed in both situations, as they might not be able to contribute enough to business-critical features to justify their costs and most frontend-related tasks will be taken over by the "10x" seniors.

Smart organizations will not just deliver better products but likely start products that they were hesitant to start before because the cost of starting is a lot closer to zero. Smart engineering leadership will encourage developers into delivering value and not self-serving, endless iterations of tooling enhancements, etc.

If I was a CTO and my competitor Y fired 90% of their devs, I'd try to secure funding to hire their top talent and retain them. The vitriol alone could fuel some interesting creations and when competitor Y realizes things later, their top talent will have moved on.

If it is a big company the answer is and will always be: whatever makes the stock price rise the most.

Ruby on Rails and its imitators blew away tons of boilerplate. Despite some hype at the time about a productivity revolution, it didn’t _really_ change that much.

> , libraries, build-tools,

Ensure what you mean by this; what bearing do our friends the magic robots have on these?

> and refactoring

Again, IntelliJ did not really cause a productivity revolution by making refactoring trivial about 20 years ago. Also, refactoring is kind of a solved problem, due to IntelliJ et al; what’s an LLM getting you there that decent deterministic tooling doesn’t?

I think that it's more along the lines of "do you fire people" instead of just "do you fire devs". Fewer devs means less of a need for PMs, so they can be let go as well, and maybe with the rise of AI assisted design tools, you don't need as many UX people, so you let some of them go as well.

As for building better products, I feel like that's a completely different topic than using AI for productivity gains, but only because at the end of the day you need buy in from upper management in order to build the features/redo existing features/both that will make the product better. I should also mention I'm viewing this from the position of someone who works at an established company and not a startup, so it may differ.

CTO is rewriting company platform (by himself with AI) and is convinced it's 100x productivity. But when you step back and look at the broader picture, he's rewriting what something like Rails, .NET, or Spring gave us 15-20 years ago? It's just in languages and code styles he is (only) familiar with. That's not 100x for the business, sorry...

If it is writing both the code and the tests then you're going to find that its tests are remarkable, they just work. At least until you deploy to a live state and start testing for yourself, then you'll notice that its mostly only testing the exact code that it wrote, its not confrontational or trying to find errors and it already assumes that its going to work. It won't ever come up with the majority of breaking cases that a developer will by itself, you will need to guide it. Also while fixing those the odds of introducing other breaking changes are decent, and after enough prompts you are going to lose coherency no matter what you do.

It definitely makes a lot of boilerplate code easier, but what you don't notice is that its just moving the difficult to find problems into hidden new areas. That fancy code that it wrote maybe doesn't take any building blocks, lower levels such as database optimization etc. into account. Even for a simple application a half-decent developer can create something that will run quite a bit faster. If you start bringing these problems to it then it might be able to optimize them, but the amount of time that's going to take is non-negligible.

It takes developers time to sit on code, learn it along with the problem space and how to tie them together effectively. If you take that away there is no learning, you're just the monkey copy-pasting the produced output from the black box and hoping that you get a result that works. Even worse is that every step you take doesn't bring you any closer to the solution, its pretty much random.

So what is it good for? It can both read, "understand", translate, write and explain things to a sufficient degree much faster than us humans. But if you are (at the moment) trusting it at anything past the method level for code then you're just shooting yourself in the foot, you're just not feeling the pain until later. In a day you can have it generate for example a whole website, backend, db etc. for your new business idea but that's not a "product", it might as well be a promotional video that you throw away once you've used it to impress the investors. For now that might still work, but people are already catching on and beginning to wise up.

Amazon has demonstrated that it takes just as longer, or longer, to have senior devs review LLM output than it would to just have the senior devs do the programming in the first place. But now your senior devs are wasted on reviewing instead of developing or engineering. Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Salesforce, and Palantir have all suffered multiple losses in the tens of millions (or more) due to AI output issues. Now that Microsoft has finally realized how bad LLMs really are at generating useful output, they've begun removing AI functionality from Windows.

Product quality matters more than time to market. Especially in tech, the first-to-market is almost never the company that dominates, so it's truly bizarre that VCs are always so focused on their investments trying to be first to market instead of best to market.

If Competitor Y just fired 90% of their developers, I would have a toast with my entire human team. And a few months later, we'd own the market with our superior product.

Situation a/ llm increase developer's productivity: you hire more developers as you cash profit. If you don't your competitor will.

b/ llm doesn't increase productivity, you keep cruising. You rejoice seeing some competitors lay off.

Reality shows dissonance with these only possible scenarios. Absurd decision making, a mistake? No mistake. Many tech companies are facing difficulties, they need to lose weight to remain profitable, and appease the shareholders demand for bigger margins.

How to do this without a backlash? Ai is replacing developers, Anthropic's CEO said engineers don't write code anymore, role obsolete in 6 months. It naturally makes sense we have to let some of them go. If the prophecy doesn't turn true, nobody ever get fired for buying IBM.

For greenfield development you don't need as many software engineers. Some developers (the top 10%) are still needed to guide AI and make architectural decisions, but the remaining 90% will work on the lifecycle management task mentioned above.

The productivity gains can be used to produce more software, and if you are able to sell the software you produce should result in a revenue boost. But if you produce more than you can sell then some people will be laid off.

At my company, we are maintaining our hiring plan (I'm the decision maker). We have never been more excited at our permission to win against the incumbents in our market. At the same time, I've never been more concerned about other startups giving us a real run. I think we will see a bit of an arms race for the best talent as a result.

Productivity without clear vision, strategy and user feedback loops is meaningless. But those startups that are able to harness the productivity gains to deliver more complete and polished solutions that solve real problems for their users will be unstoppable.

We've always seen big gains by taking a team of say 8 and splitting it into 2 teams of 4. I think the major difference is that now we will probably split teams of 4 into 2 teams of 2 with clearer remits. I don't want them to necessarily delivery more features. But I do want them to deliver features with far fewer caveats at a higher quality and then iterate more on those.

Humans that consume the software will become the bottlenecks of change!

I keep being told this and the tools keep falling at the first hurdle. This morning I asked Claude to use a library to load a toml file in .net and print a value. It immediately explained how it was an easy file format to parse and didn’t need a library. I undid, went back to plan mode and it picked a library, added it and claimed it was done. Except the code didn’t compile.

Three iterations later of trying to get Claude to make it compile (it changed random lines around the clear problematic line) I fixed it by following the example in the readme, and told Claude.

I then asked Claude to parse the rest of the toml file, whereby it blew away the compile fix I had made..

This isn’t an isolated experience - I hit these fundamental blocking issues with pretty much every attempt to use these tools that isn’t “implement a web page”, and even when it does that it’s not long before it gets tangled up in something or other…

Not hiring someone?

If your team is "throw juniors into the enterprise boilerplate coal mine" and you expect talent to eventually quit, then laying people off might be the right move.

If your team is "highly skilled devs try to invent new products", then you should focus on shipping more.

My own experience...

I've tried approaching vibe coding in at least 3 different ways. At first I wrote a system that had specs (markdown files) where there is a 1 to 1 mapping between each spec to a matching python module. I only ever edited the spec, treating the code itself as an opaque thing that I ignore (though defined the intrefaces for). It kind of worked, though I realized how distinct the difference between a spec that communicates intent and a spec that specifies detail really is.

From this, I felt that maybe I need to stay closer to the code, but just use the LLM as a bicycle of the mind. So I tried "write the code itself, and integrate an LLM into emacs so that you can have a discussion with the LLM about individual code, but you use it for criticism and guidance, not to actually generate code". It also worked (though I never wrote anything more then small snippets of Elisp with it). I learned more doing things this way, though I have the nagging suspicion that I was actually moving slower than I theoretically could have. I think this is another valid way.

I'm currently experimenting with a 100% vibe coded project (https://boltread.com). I mostly just drive it through interaction on the terminal, with "specs" that kind of just act as intent (not specifications). I find the temptation to get out of the outside critic mode and into just looking at the code is quite strong. I have resisted it to date (I want to experiment with what it feels like to be a vibe coder who cannot program), to judge if I realistically need to be concerned about it. Just like LLM generated things in general, the project seems to get closer and closer to what I want, but it is like shaping mud, you can put detail into something, but it won't stay that way over time; its sharp detail will be reduced to smooth curves as you then switch to putting detail elsewhere. I am not 100% sure on how to deal with that issue.

My current thoughts is that we have failed to actually find a good way of switching from the "macro" (vibbed) to the "micro" (hand coded) view of LLM development. It's almost like we need modules (blast chambers?) for different parts of any software project. Where we can switch to doing things by hand (or at least with more intent) when necessary, and doing things by vibe when not. Striking the balance between those things that nets the greater output is quite challenging, and it may not even be that their is an optimal intersection, but simply that you are exchanging immediate change for future flexibility to the software?

The more grounded reality is that AI coding can be a productivity multiplier in the right hands, and a significant hindrance in the wrong hands.

Somewhere there exists a happy medium between vibe coding without ever looking at the code, and hand-writing every single line.

After combine harvester, we produced the same food with less people.

At the moment, it seems like hardware is the constraint. Companies don't have access to enough machines or tokens to keep all their devs occupied, so they let some go. Maybe that changes, maybe we already have too much software?

Personally I think we already had too much software before LLMs and even without them many devs would have found themselves jobless as startups selling to startups selling to startups failed and we realized (again) that food, shelter, security, education etc are 'real' industries, but software isn't one if it's not actively helping one of those.