Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I think the article is missing two points: if the latest layoffs aren't related to AI, then this doesn't mean AI won't have or has an impact on head count.

And investment and experiments by definition include the risk of failing. In almost everything lies a survivorship bias and no one talks about the 100+ car makers that went into goldrush mode 100+ years ago. This is life. Netflix vs Blockbuster - already forgotten?

Also the "fail rate" - so what part is failing and why? What's with the 5%? If we have a look at exponential functions this might be a really good deal, if the 5% can account for the losses. After all, benefits compound over time.

I witnessed first hand in FAANG some quota hires and I believe that now that no one gets paid for contrived and artificial business advantages, we are back to a more merits based evaluation of workers.

But AI should not be written off as fancy something with no impact. That's the wrong take. Whether it will be a springboard to new jobs that compensate for losses or replacements - I am not yet sure, but tent to be in the former group. ML engineers take care of ML - something new that takes care of something new.

We will see.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: