| ▲ | shartshooter 15 hours ago |
| This summer I went camping and at the campground next to me was a middle manager at Amazon. I’ve been out of the workforce for about a year, so I asked him how much of an impact AI was having in his role. He told me that he had worked to develop a tool that would replace effectively all of the middle management function that he was responsible for: gathering information from folks below him, distilling it down and reporting that to people above him. His hope was that he would be retained to maintain the system that he built, knowing that every other manager at his level was going to be terminated. It felt like watching someone who is about to be executed be responsible for building the gallows. He should’ve been so aware that his job was going to be the first one cut, and he was responsible for building a tool to cut his own job. But he was optimistic that the cuts wouldn’t come for him Makes me wonder how he’s doing today |
|
| ▲ | Aurornis 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > He told me that he had worked to develop a tool that would replace effectively all of the middle management function that he was responsible for: gathering information from folks below him, distilling it down and reporting that to people above him. Any manager whose job was this simple was on borrowed time anyway. I think the person was feeding you a story around the campfire to impress you. Real management work doesn't operate like this. |
| |
| ▲ | jasondigitized 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Fake management is far more common than real management. Most of management is centered around hyper-realistic work like activities. | | |
| ▲ | pydry 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | My experience with ex Amazon managers is that they brought a toxic culture and destroyed more value than they created. Some people are so focused on whether they could automate their work output with an LLM to ask themselves if they even should. | | |
| |
| ▲ | nmfisher 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Real management work doesn't operate like this. Don't know about Amazon but my experience with middle management is that it's exactly like that. | | |
| ▲ | spiritplumber 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Also, if you bite them after telling them five times "please don't touch me", it's somehow your fault. |
| |
| ▲ | dialogbox 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >> gathering information from folks below him, distilling it down and reporting that to people above him. > Real management work doesn't operate like this. I agree but in the opposite direction. So many managers not only doing that but doctoring, filtering and tainting it as well. So AI would be more effective for the most of bad managers. | |
| ▲ | coreyoconnor 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I left amazon, in part, because of this realization: Much of management was exactly doing that. That was back in the BERT days and even then writing was on the wall. | |
| ▲ | booleandilemma 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Actually I've worked at companies where management is exactly like this. Literally just status updates and asking when things are going to be finished. I have no respect for middle managers whatsoever. These people are a parasite on the industry. | | |
| ▲ | hattmall 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Ok, Ok, I get the disdain for middle management. It's basically exactly like you described, but middle management didn't come about for no reason. There really is a value and the idea of automating it away with AI is extremely dubious. One could even argue that middle management is THE most critical role in corporations over a certain size. In that it is the glue that allows them to get to that size. But it's also what gave rise to things like Dilbert and the idea of rising to the level of your own incompetence. Middle management is like the lug nuts on a wheel. If you start with 5, you can take one away and be OK, even two and no issues with normal driving. You can go down to two and as long as you aren't hitting large bumps and they aren't adjacent you mostly likely will be fine for a short trip. You could even remove ALL of the lug nuts and if you travel in straight line over a smooth road you can still drive. After all they mostly just sit there, the tire, the transmission, all the other parts of the car are doing the work. But it's not fair to say that any of the removed lug nuts were doing nothing. The point of middle management isn't really to do anything spectacular on a daily basis. If the company is working well, middle management effectively has no function. It's when things get out of line. Even then though, it's not really middle management that's calling the shots or fixing the problem, but they are critical in noticing the problems and directing resources. Middle management's role is in reducing the time that things are out of line. At least that's the idea, and much like any position, the bulk of the group benefits are overwhelmingly produced by the groups most effective producers. Middle management is the hardest role to hire while simultaneously being the hardest to gauge employee effectiveness. | | |
| ▲ | dasil003 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Middle management is a tremendous market for lemons. It's difficult to do well, and each layer requires a very different skillset. One of the side effects of the hypergrowth era of big tech between 2008-2023 is that a lot of managers were needed to support the amount of hiring, and they weren't very well trained, and often they could claim success for a rising tide almost by default as long as they didn't do anything too blatantly stupid. The Peter Principle is of course well-known, but one of the insidious things is that once you have enough incompetent management and they are entrenched for a while, they will teach all the wrong lessons to an entire generation of new hires coming in. Due to the incentives and optics of large orgs, managers tend to spin everything in a positive light publicly, and the real unfiltered discussions of failure happen in tighter circles. At some point a lot of "successful" folks can have job hopped their way through a bunch of brand name companies just cargo culting on what they've seen done before with no real understanding of how their work actually impacts the company's bottom line. This is one of the reasons I'm incredibly thankful to have spent most of my early career in small companies and startups where the big picture was so much easier to see. | |
| ▲ | dntrkv 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is most definitely an overgeneralization, but in my experience, engineers that constantly talk shit about management are either shitty engineers themselves or they're incredibly difficult to work with and blame everyone else for their shortcomings. Middle management is playing a completely different game. I don't envy them one bit. Sure, there are toxic cultures created by bad management, but that can be said about any leadership role. There is a reason for the hierarchy, if you think you have a better approach to structuring a company, have at it. | | |
| ▲ | anon291 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Having ended up in management by accident and then just sticking around with it for a while just because.... I am now back in an IC role and I mostly feel sorry for my manager honestly. |
| |
| ▲ | ethbr1 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Well said! I'd also add that a critical function of middle management in healthy companies is bidirectional information communication: sharing what their teams are doing up and sharing leadership priorities down. Having worked at some dysfunctional companies where that didn't happen (and a few companies that were amazing at it), it makes a difference at scale. Nothing is more disheartening than working your ass off as an IC, shipping, then finding out that your VP pivoted approach and your project won't be used. |
| |
| ▲ | nipponese 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | In the past, my job has been exactly this. A few times I took my hands off the wheel to see if I was truly redundant. Let's just say, I wasn't. At worst, I was the only one looking at the schedule. At best, I was a support mechanism for people working on an absolutely boring product. |
| |
| ▲ | khazhoux 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > I think the person was feeding you a story around the campfire to impress you. Yeah, this sounds like the guy was just exaggerating for effect. Haven't we all joked before, "I'm writing a tool to automate my own job away." | |
| ▲ | jdmg94 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | you would be amazed at the amount of middle managers who keep failing upwards in organizations like Amazon | | |
| ▲ | ganoushoreilly 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Happens in the Govt too. I think it's pretty common that if you can "sell a story" you're in a better spot than simply doing well at the job. | | |
| ▲ | NicoJuicy 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's literally the current president | | |
| ▲ | api 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think he might be the greatest person at failing up who has ever lived. It has to be some kind of savant-like skill. After this he’ll probably become the literal king of the world. | | |
| ▲ | reaperducer 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think he might be the greatest person at failing up who has ever lived. Went bankrupt six times and is still hailed by his followers as an economic genius. Few people can pull that off. | | |
| ▲ | auggierose 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I think what is hard to understand for people is how you can go bankrupt six times and still have loads of assets and money. How does that work? | |
| ▲ | hvb2 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Married 4 times, still seen as a saint | |
| ▲ | nick49488171 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | He's going for number 7 it seems |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | retinaros 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | lol. it does. its a good description of about 90% of the mgrs | | | |
| ▲ | complianceowl 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [dead] | |
| ▲ | woooooo 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Amazon in particular has a highly formalized ritual for reporting up and down that consumes managers entirely. If you don't play, youll be humiliated and fired. The engineers self-organize while the managers are working in their own, different universe. |
|
|
| ▲ | mrtksn 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| TBH the last 20-30 years was exactly like that but computers were eliminating other peoples jobs for really good profits for the investors and really good salaries for the workers doing the elimination. Before that people were eliminating blue colar workers with highly productive machines and industrial robots. I don't see how eliminating your co-workers is any different. Software ate the world and now AI will eat the "software professionals". When this is over, just like the rust belts there will be code belts where once highly valued software developers will be living in decaying neighborhoods and the politicians will be promising to create software jobs by banning AI. |
| |
| ▲ | 3acctforcom 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I kill jobs for a living, and always wondered when the promise of "Low code" would kill my job. Turns out AI reduces the barrier juuuuuuuust enough for competent managers and clerks to automate their own processes. Thank god most managers aren't competent, I might just make it to retirement. | |
| ▲ | chrysoprace 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There might be a time when software developers become obsolete, and I don't pretend to know the future, but if today's models are anything to go by then it won't happen any time soon. At the end of the day, there'll still be a need for highly skilled technical experts, whatever that job looks like. | | |
| ▲ | ChoGGi 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I'll be curious to see how the next generation of highly skilled technical experts will be raised. | | |
| ▲ | hkt 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I have a nasty suspicion that far fewer of them will be, that CS and SE based professions will end up collapsing and consolidating into a handful of AI megacorporations and a guild-like elite of AI-herders will be what's left. |
| |
| ▲ | geodel 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > At the end of the day, there'll still be a need for highly skilled technical experts, whatever that job looks like. Well, this is kind of obvious right. Highly skilled people of next generation will do fine. The point is millions of highly skilled successful people of today could soon be below average category, jobless and can be called clueless, stuck in old ways who didn't simply see what is happening in the world. And I am not blaming anyone. Despite seeing changes coming even I am not able to do much either. Just hilariously trying to do "cloud technology" courses which folks did decades back, made money and by now even forgot about it. | | |
| ▲ | tokioyoyo 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Highly skilled people of next generation will do fine. I would bet for the opposite. In a huge rush to optimization and job elimination, early career people suffer the most. However it also makes it impossible to switch careers, start from scratch, and etc. | |
| ▲ | chrysoprace 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | In my experience, many highly experienced professionals are already below average. That's not to say they don't work hard, but if their solutions are on par or worse than what an LLM can produce, then they might see themselves out of a job if the LLM can work harder. As another commenter said, we'll likely see a big change on the junior end, which will affect the more experienced hire pool as time goes on. |
| |
| ▲ | rayiner 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > At the end of the day, there'll still be a need for highly skilled technical experts, whatever that job looks like. Why? There was a time when there was a need for highly skilled seamstresses. And we never developed the technology to do their jobs as well as they could. But people just learned to deal with mass produced clothes that didn’t fit perfectly because it was so much cheaper. | | |
| ▲ | snowwrestler 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not sure what the point is here because highly skilled seamstress is still a well-paying job, and all the mass-produced clothes are also still sewn by hand. | | |
| ▲ | AngryData 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Where do you live that skilled seamstress is such a valuable job? Just because a handful of people make bank doesn't mean there is some large unfilled market for those skills. I can find some highly paid blacksmiths too, but 99% of people who know how to blacksmith well will never make more than a paltry sum if anything at all off of it. | | |
| ▲ | hattmall 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Pretty much anywhere being a competent seamstress pays well. The difference between highly skilled and competent is open to interpretation. The difference between being competent and the very basics that can assemble cut and sew patterns is huge though. Pretty much anyone can do cut and sew with like a week of training which is all the mass produced clothes. But someone who is competent and can do quality alterations, mending, customize patterns etc, is going to make decent money. But I'm pretty sure where ever you live there are seamstress working and making good money. I'm not even really sure where automation would have impacted being a seamstress. Sewing machines have been around since the 1700's and if anything the demand for textiles has increased more than the speed of production. Maybe you are thinking more of knitting, which is highly automated and used to be a big job, now it's basically just a hobby. Blacksmiths just evolved to modern day welders, iron workers, boilermakers etc. Still pays well. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | iJohnDoe 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > software developers become obsolete > there’ll still be a need for highly skilled technical experts Two different things. Yes, many, many software developers will become obsolete in certain industries. It’s already happening. Putting on blinders doesn’t make it go away. Yes, highly skilled technical experts will absolutely still be needed. |
| |
| ▲ | carlcortright 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | this is a very pessimistic take could be, but the universe is odd in so many different ways it's hard to be sure | | |
| ▲ | izzydata 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It feels more like a really optimistic take on AI. I won't say it is impossible, but I haven't seen anything that suggests AI is going to do what OpenAI and Nvidia claims it will. | |
| ▲ | 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | risyachka 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >> AI will eat the "software professionals" you mean AI will eat everyone, because if software professionals will be automated - all other white collar jobs will be too via software. And then all resources will be poured in hardware and blue collar jobs will be automated too, at least those that have more value. | | |
| ▲ | LPisGood 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That’s the thing here. Software engineering is an intelligence-complete problem. If AI can solve it, then it can solve any sort of knowledge work like accounting, financial analysis, etc | | |
| ▲ | sfink 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Only if by "solving it", you mean being able to write any program to do anything. Software engineering is a hubris-complete problem. Somehow, being able to do so much seems to make us all assume that everyone else is capable of so little. But just because we can write 1000 programs to do 1000 different things, and because AI can write 1000 programs to do 1000 different things, it doesn't mean that we can write the million other programs that do a million other things. That would be like assuming that because someone is a writer and has written 1 book, that they are fully capable of writing both War & Peace and an exhaustive manual on tractor repair. Financial analysis is not easier than programming. You don't feed in numbers, turn a crank, and get out correct answers. Some people do only that, and yeah, AI can probably replace them. "Computing" as a field only made sense when computers were new. We're going to have to go back to actually accomplishing things, not depending on the fact that computers are involved and making them do anything is hard so anyone who can make them do things is automatically valuable. (Which sucks for me, because I'm pretty good at making computers do things but not so good at much of anything else with economic value.) "What do you do?" "I use computers to do X." "Why didn't you just say you do X, then?" is already kind of a thing; now it's going to move on to "I use AI to do X." Then again: the AI-dependent generation is losing the ability to think, as a result of leaning on AI to do it for them. So while my generation stuck the previous generation with maintaining COBOL programs, the next generation will stick mine with thinking. I can deal with that. I like thinking. </end-of-weird-rant> | | |
| ▲ | LPisGood 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Financial analysis is not easier than programming. You don't feed in numbers, turn a crank, and get out correct answers It’s not, but if software engineering is solved then of course so is financial analysis, because a program could be written to do it. If the program is not good enough, then software engineering is not solved. I think this what you were getting at with this part, but it’s not clear to me, because it seems like you were disagreeing with my thesis: “ because AI can write 1000 programs to do 1000 different things, it doesn't mean that we can write the million other programs that do a million other things” I’m not sure if you’re saying that people weren’t using computers to solve problems before, but that’s pretty much everything they do. Some people were specifically trained to make computers solve problems, but if computers can solve X problem without a programmer, then both the computer programmer and the X problem solver are replaced. | | |
| ▲ | hattmall 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't think software engineering is ever going to be solved, but financial analysis will definitely never be solved. It's impossible, the nature of it dictates that, whatever changes happen will further change the results. Financial analysis requires novel thinking, and even if you have AGI that can engage in novel thought they will just be another input into the system. | | |
| ▲ | nick49488171 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Just like AI, the winners will (continue to) be the ones with the most access to data and the technical and financial capital to make use of it. |
|
| |
| ▲ | jayers 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is the crux of it. The digital world doesn't produce value except when it eases the production of real goods. Software Development as a field is strange: it can only produce value when it is used to make production of real goods more efficient. We can use AI to cut out bureaucratic work, which then means that all that is left is real work: craftsmanship, relationship building, design, leadership. There are plenty of "human in the loop" jobs still left. I certainly don't want furniture designed by AI, because there is no possible way for an AI to understand my particular fleshly requirements (AI simply doesn't have the wetware required to understand human tactile needs). But the bureaucratic jobs will mostly be automated away, and good riddance. They were killing the human spirit. | | |
| ▲ | SJC_Hacker 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Software Development as a field is strange: it can only produce value when it is used to make production of real goods more efficient. We can use AI to cut out bureaucratic work, which then means that all that is left is real work: craftsmanship, relationship building, design, leadership. Thats a really odd take. Software is merely a way of ingesting data and producing information. And information often has intrinsic value. This can scale from simple things like minor annoyances of forgetting your umbrella, to avoiding deaths/millions of dollars in losses due to ships sinking in storms. Now the long term value of software does approach zero, because it can usually be duplicated quite easily. |
| |
| ▲ | apsurd 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I value your weird rant. Yes it did go on as a thought stream, but there's sense in there. I've been thinking a lot around a kind of smart-people paradox: very intellectual arguments all basically plotting a line toward some inevitable conclusion like super intelligence or consciousness. Everything is a raw compute problem. While at the same time all scientific progress gives us more and more evidence that reality is non-computable, non linear. | | |
| ▲ | SJC_Hacker 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > While at the same time all scientific progress gives us more and more evidence that reality is non-computable, non linear. What scientific problems are non-computable? ANNs are designed to handle non-linearities BTW, thats the entire point of activation functions and multi layer networks | | |
| ▲ | apsurd 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | non computable, non-linear as in given known input parameters you can determine the output parameters. we can't do that for mostly any complex physical system, as would be for something like living organisms. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | gedy 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You are right, but I think at the moment, a lot of people are confusing "software engineering" with "set up my react boilerplate with tailwind and unit tests", and AI just is way better for that sort of rote thing. I've never felt comfortable with the devs who just want some Jira ticket with exactly what to do. That's basically what AI/LLMs can do pretty well. | | |
| ▲ | LPisGood 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Those people have always annoyed the hell out of me and I would prefer to not work with them. |
|
| |
| ▲ | mrtksn 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Software was already at its limits on automation, the last thing automated will be writing code that does the required thing but automating other stuff that wasn’t already automated by software will take some time because will require AI advances in those particular domains. | |
| ▲ | Buttons840 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Once an AI runs a single company well, all publicly traded companies will have a legal obligation to at least consider replacing the C-suite with AI. In theory. I'll believe it when I see it. |
| |
| ▲ | rayiner 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | They should reboot Silicon Valley with this premise. |
|
|
| ▲ | socalgal2 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'm super sympathetic that losing your job sucks. I lost mine once. At the same time, what's the alternative? Progress happens. We no longer have liveries for holding horses nor horse shoe makers (not at the level we used to). We no longer have telephone operators. Making up jobs to keep people employed isn't a viable solution to me. Supporting them in some way (re-training, UBI, service work, ...) seems like the only way forward. I guess maybe I can imagine making it harder to fire people so you have to find something to do with them. But that also has negative consequences. Small companies won't/can't hire because they can't make the guarantees big companies can. |
| |
| ▲ | Shocka1 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | IMO, this is one of the better takes in this thread. I'm a big fan of Hazlitt's book Economics in One Lesson, which gives a very condensed version of some economic ideas - one of them being automation, with really good examples in the past of labor saving machines like the printing press being created. When I first read it a decade ago I didn't think my profession might be like the printing press, but it's definitely in the crosshairs now. If I lost my software engineering job tomorrow and was unable to find work within a few months, I have a repurposing plan ready to go. Yes it would be terrible for me economically and I'm sure there would be some sad days, but sometimes bad things happen and we have to make the best of them and move on. | | |
| ▲ | WalterBright 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The printing press also led to books changing from being something only rich people had to everyone having books. This also enabled the industrial revolution, as books made literacy worth having, newspapers, and became a great storehouse of knowledge. I.e. it created far, far more jobs than it destroyed. | | |
| ▲ | 1shooner 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I have not heard even the most enthusiastic AI booster describe net job creation as a possible outcome. If you have any details on that prediction, I'd be interested to hear what they are. | | |
| ▲ | WalterBright 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Nobody remotely believed what the printing press invention would lead to. After all, Gutenberg had only a modest goal of printing and selling indulgences. He didn't understand what the printing press was good for, either. Pretty much all the jobs today did not exist before the printing press that enabled them. | | |
| ▲ | anon291 38 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I mean in some countries today, the idea of universal literacy helping people is still met with skepticism by some segments of the population. It's apparently not obvious that mode access to books , learning, and literacy will improve lives |
| |
| ▲ | anon291 40 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Net job creation will be the outcome as the insane number of businesses that were once too expensive to start due to lack of knowledge labor suddenly come online. | |
| ▲ | lechatonnoir 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I mean... you can't think of any ways that AI could actually generate new value? Or more abstractly, of a way that Jevons' paradox can't apply in the case of AI? |
| |
| ▲ | apical_dendrite 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | One wonders if a German in 1600 would have cursed the invention of the printing press. The printing press accelerated the reformation, which led to over a century of bloody religious wars. Something like a third of the German population died as a result. From the perspective of 2025, the printing press was undoubtedly positive for humanity. But millions of people suffered. | | |
| |
| ▲ | BigHatLogan 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What is your repurposing plan, if you don't mind my asking? I am trying to think of alternatives too, but it's quite stressful. | | | |
| ▲ | jacquesm 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Your plan, whatever it is is still predicated on the world as it is today being more or less as it is today. The problem with anything truly disruptive is that it may very well cause your plan to become infeasible for a variety of reasons. For your sake I hope that you were aware of that little detail and made your plan bullet proof or flexible enough that that is not going to cause you any headaches. | |
| ▲ | ytoawwhra92 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | All very well to have a plan, and I'm sure some people manage to successfully "repurpose" themselves, but historically the way this plays out is that redundant workers live out their days in relative poverty and it's their children/grandchildren who find new opportunities out of economic necessity. Usually takes 2-3 generations for the impact on workers to fully shake out. | |
| ▲ | theshackleford 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > If I lost my software engineering job tomorrow and was unable to find work within a few months, I have a repurposing plan ready to go. Get back to me when you need to execute that plan with millions of others joining the bread line. |
| |
| ▲ | Uehreka 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Making up jobs to keep people employed isn't a viable solution to me. Supporting them in some way (re-training, UBI, service work, ...) seems like the only way forward. If this is what you think needs to happen and you live in the US, then you should be freaking out right now, not calmly posting takes like this. UBI is not a thing almost any current American politician is considering, and the overton window is speeding in the opposite direction. You should not expect people to be reasonable about this. I don’t know what the answer here is, but if you want it to be UBI, you need to fight for it. The alternatives (artificial price controls, the dumb make-work policies you correctly disdained, first-amendment-breaking/privacy-violating AI bans) are out there, and if you don’t fight for the thing you want, you’re gonna get one of those. | | |
| ▲ | slibhb 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > UBI is not a thing almost any current American politician is considering, and the overton window is speeding in the opposite direction. That will change real quick if everyone loses their job to AI. But until then, yeah, it's not going to happen, and it shouldn't. | | |
| ▲ | Uehreka 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > That will change real quick if everyone loses their job to AI. No, this is exactly my point: they will be angry, unreasonable, and thirsty for revenge. They’ll hand over freedoms like Halloween candy. How about a law where the government gets to survey your hard drive to make sure you’re not harboring an AI model? Sounds crazy, sounds insane, but in the current political climate I’d rate it more likely than UBI. |
| |
| ▲ | no_wizard 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > I don’t know what the answer here is Blood. If things don’t reverse course this trajectory historically leads to bloodshed. In many respects it already has. How many people have died just this year already because businesses didn’t do what they were suppose to? Because cutting costs with no consequences is seen as the norm? Of course nobody wants to account for those externalities and when that blood comes back on them they become scared and use government force instead. You’re seeing the trial run with ICE as we write our comments on this forum | |
| ▲ | WalterBright 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The math doesn't work out for UBI. | | |
| ▲ | cptroot 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Would you like to elaborate why the math doesn't work out? An article explaining your position would be nice, but I'd settle for some broad gestures. | | |
| ▲ | WalterBright 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | 342,000,000 people in the US. Multiply by $10,000/yr. Cost of UBI: 3,420,000,000,000 Where is $3.5 trillion going to come from? |
| |
| ▲ | joquarky 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | UBI will become at least as complicated as federal taxes. Perverse incentives will creep in. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | brikym 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'm going to sound like a luddite I'm sure but I'm tried of these analogies using horses, tractors and so on.
Labor involving muscles was replaced with tractors but people could just switch to using the other half of their body; The Brain.
Now that a lot of the creative tasks and knowledge work is being replaced there isn't anywhere for those people to go. Maybe people with esoteric industry knowledge, vibe-coding skills or trade skills will be fine. For a while. It will be musical chairs without many chairs as a growing number of people retrain into a fixed or shrinking job pool. | | |
| ▲ | coffeemug 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | I still don’t understand why people oppose that rather than enthusiastically desire it. The end state you’re describing is the culmination of the enlightenment project. Automating labor is the point! Then you can paint, or play chess, or eat amazing food, or do whatever you want. Work isn’t the end, it’s the means. Products and services is the end. If we can achieve the end via technology, who cares about the work? | | |
| ▲ | brikym 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That automation will be owned by a few and they're known for avoiding taxes not supporting something like a UBI. The masses a mostly likely to be kept busy watching propaganda on Tiktok not painting. Food continues to go downhill the more agritech progresses and the planets population grows. Proteins are replaced by carbs with savoury flavouring, fats are replaced by thickeners etc. Eating good food like a good cut of steak requires out bidding other people which requires income. | |
| ▲ | Lambdanaut 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There's always two sides to a coin right? While everything you said is true, I think that there's a pattern people are generally aware of in this world. Things that don't serve a purpose, vanish. We see it in worker replacement, in vestigial organic structures that shrink over millinea, and in the tools and objects we keep with us in our lives. The question, once achieving this grandiose goal, is how long, and by what mechanism, will we continue to enjoy the fruits of our labor? Perhaps there will be a time when we may enjoy this world without the pressure of being a cog within it, but ultimately this time may be short if we are able to manifest it at all. The unease comes from the power we lose when we cease to be the means of production, and instead become a vestigial organ on a beast much more complex than ourselves. | |
| ▲ | 9x39 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | We industrialized and a few at the top enjoyed a life of leisure while the rest of us worked in the new ways to build, operate, and do endless maintenance. Any more room as part of the painting and chess class this time, or are we all maintenance again? | |
| ▲ | piperswe 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Once the rich own machines that do everything for them, they have no need for us and we have no leverage over them. What's left for us then? | |
| ▲ | mikeweiss 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes work is the means, the means to earn an income. Do you live in a country that has a big enough social safety net that you trust it to provide you the necessary income and healthcare so that you can just paint and play chess all day? I certainly don't... I live in the U.S.A :-/ | | |
| ▲ | p1esk 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Safety nets only work while there are people paying (a lot of) taxes. | | |
| ▲ | mikeweiss 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I guess you could tax the companies and people still earning money at like 95% or something. |
|
| |
| ▲ | rcruzeiro 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You are missing the part where we built our society on the fact that people need at least some money to exist with the basic level of dignity. | |
| ▲ | fogzen 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Because in the world people currently live in, a small class of people own the means of production and the land you stand on, and everyone else has to have a job to access all of the necessities to live. Eliminating jobs means, quite literally, eliminating people's livelihood. And that same class of people who own everything would rather kill everyone else and also destroy the planet than give up their position or allow any of the socioeconomic changes necessary to change the distribution of wealth. | |
| ▲ | 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
| |
| ▲ | techblueberry 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > At the same time, what's the alternative? Progress happens. I actually wonder if solving this problem - this feeling of powerlessness in the face of progress is an interesting problem to solve in our time. Plenty of people have figured this out. The Amish, people move to islands and other countries to not be part of modern progress. "Making up jobs to keep people employed isn't a viable solution to me. " Why not? I mean Keynes argued something like: if the Treasury filled old bottles with banknotes, buried them in disused coal mines, filled the mines with rubbish, and then left it to private enterprise to dig them up again, there would be no more unemployment and the real income of the community would probably become a good deal larger than it actually was." But it really does feel sometimes like. Why do we feel this powerlessness to progress? Why can't we architect the world we want to have? I have really been wondering. Lots of religious groups want to revert some progress. Maybe these whole network cities folks have a point. Maybe we can have a city like pegged to the like technical and architectural standards of the victorian era. | |
| ▲ | jnaina 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | have been hearing from several ex-AWS colleagues about the job losses within their teams and the number of people impacted since yesterday. it’s depressing, but also symptomatic of a much larger obvious shift already underway for some time now, now being further accelerated by new technology. AI and automation are rapidly erasing roles across both white and blue collar work. this is now a present present reality in almost all sectors. extrapolating this, it is clear this ongoing displacement will drive successive waves of unemployment and underemployment, placing severe strain on social contracts and accelerating societal instability. countries with strong social compacts may weather the coming storm. but others, especially those with larger population that lack "cultural ballast" >cough USA< will likely to slide into chaos, if not outright anarchy. harder question to ponder is this: in a world where human labor is no longer the primary allocator of income and resources remain finite, sustaining nearly half of today’s global population under existing economic models begins to look fundamentally untenable. china’s one child policy starts to feel less irrational and more prescient. beginning to think that perhaps I should be advising my kids to learn a trade on the side, as a backup plan, even as they chart their budding careers in the corporate world. | |
| ▲ | tokioyoyo 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Making up jobs to keep people employed isn't a viable solution to me. It’s going to sound naive and stupid, but I think it somehow works. There are millions of jobs here in Japan that exist for the sake of existing. Government knows, people know, workers know as well. But everyone understands that the flipside also sucks. Sure, we can say we should optimize and people need to re-learn and etc and etc. But that’s not the reality. At some point people just want to exist without worrying about 50 years down the road, or if they can feed their family tonight. | | |
| ▲ | pezezin 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | On the other hand the Japanese economy has been quite stagnant since 1990, and the yen is right now on a downwards spiral, so I don't think it is such a good solution. And as a gaijin living in Japan, I usually get extremely pissed off at the extreme inefficiency of Japanese companies, things that in any other country would take one month here take 5 years. | | |
| ▲ | tokioyoyo 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Every country has their own problems. Honestly, there aren't a single large country where everything is perfect. Too many opinions, too many needs, increase median age of the politicians and the population, and etc. causes imperfect solution to every problem. At the end of the day, you have to prioritize and figure out what's important to you. I agree with literally every point you made. Sure economy is stagnant, but I'd rather take stagnant economy than a collapsing one. I agree with a lot of things are slow, but also, most of things are just... not a big deal, at least for me? I lived in Canada, and have parts of my family living in NYC as well. For every slow government related slow things, you can find something that's also slow in the NA as well. I'm not going to mention Europe at this point, as from what I've witness from my European partner, you can find inefficiencies there as well. Again, pros and cons everywhere, just gotta pick and choose what matters to you. |
| |
| ▲ | Klonoar 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I was going to comment the same thing. The prime example for me was always driving at night in Japan and coming across some grandma waving a traffic light for construction. On the surface, it's ridiculous that she's even there - but then again she has a job and can pay her bills (presumably). Shit might be annoyingly inefficient over there, but it does just work. |
| |
| ▲ | anon291 41 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is exactly how I feel. I entered the software industry right before GPGPU programming was becoming a thing. I was aware of AI and neural nets back then and saw the future and decided I wanted to be part of it. So what if my job is no longer a thing in several decades. That's the entire point. There's infinite number of ways to make a living. My way isn't better than anyone else's. People willing to adapt will always have opportunities awaiting them. The world is rich and fruitful. Plus all the fun parts of computer science are still remaining to be pondered. The fun of computers is the high of the aha moment, not the coding lol | |
| ▲ | paul7986 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Just lost my UX Researcher, Designer, UI Developer and CX Support job (8 years) two weeks of ago. They said doing a great job but have to lay you off. Within a week i put my house up for sale and received an offer. Time to downsize, "try," to stay in tech yet study to be a nurse. My field and career of 20 years seems like a vanishing one. | | |
| ▲ | Imustaskforhelp 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sorry to hear that. But coming to this point, its absolutely unfathomable seeing the difference between these two types of things On One hand we have cursor whose burning like 5-6 Million $ of money in trying to build a browser only for it to be riddled with bugs and literally just the money went into fire (read emsh's post and how he built better alternative) I mean I guess I learnt something from them burning 5 million $ but I see a lot of Companies burn so much money. My point is that all of these companies burn massive amounts of money in LLM's sometimes just for the sake of it and then some of these same companies go the other way and then fire people working. I mean is there no way for a company to be reasonable. You worked there 8 years, You knew how things worked. Getting anyone new up and running would be hard especially given you had customer relations. Tf they mean doing a great job but they have to lay you off? I mean, is the company doing really bad (I am considering something like tailwind happening here?) or what exactly. But tailwind's situation was (unique?) because their business was eaten by AI itself. Not sure about your (former) company though but I hope that you can tell more specifics if possible. | | |
| ▲ | paul7986 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Well it's a small govt contracting company. The adminstration cutting down on federal jobs, IT contracts and the tech layoffs has/is flooding the market with UX/UI folks in these parts (mid Atlantic region). Now AI is hastening the shrinking of this field. The contracting company I worked for promotes on their LinkedIn their use of AI saying we created this prototype with AI in less then a day vs. years, months and days. In September they told us this is the way forward as all govt contractors are bidding for contracts with smaller teams using AI. Per that story they are telling they need to change to survive. |
|
| |
| ▲ | unethical_ban 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The fear, which many (like myself, and Andrew Yang) have since before GenAI hit it big, is that the coming automation revolution will be magnitudes more disruptive than prior economic revolutions. It's one thing for particular skilled industries to evolve or go away; it's another when massive, diverse, frontline-and-management roles across the economy will all be wiped out in the coming decade or two. Management, warehouses, logistics, driving, retail/service industry, entertainment and advertising, programming/software engineering, even research and education. Potentially tens of millions of jobs in the US alone. COMBINED with the seemingly zero discussion in mainstream politics about improving the welfare system of the country to prevent system-scale unemployment and poverty, while the profits from "efficiencies" go to the small group of already-wealthy shareholders and owners. | | |
| ▲ | macintux 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | The safety net in the U.S. today is completely inadequate, and under constant fire from the right. I have no idea how we’re going to cope with the coming waves of layoffs. |
| |
| ▲ | georgemcbay 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > We no longer have liveries for holding horses nor horse shoe makers (not at the level we used to). We no longer have telephone operators. As you point out we've had plenty of examples in the past of jobs being displaced but (while I'm sure it always sucked to be one of the people displaced) those displacements were always relatively contained to certain industries within different time periods. The nightmare-inducing aspect of AI-related job displacement is the possible combined breadth and speed of it, which we have absolutely never seen before. Assuming the optimistic (from the perspective of the AI providers) AI predictions pan out the oncoming rush of AI job displacements are going to upended a lot of industries simultaneously, causing both increased uncertainty of what the (stable) other options are (the ground will be shifting everywhere, all at once) plus drastically increased competition for whatever other options do still exist when the music stops playing. I don't think it'll work out for us all to be nurses, plumbers, electricians and influencers. > Supporting them in some way (re-training, UBI, service work, ...) seems like the only way forward. I agree that these sorts of solutions are the rational way forward, but it just seems incredibly unlikely that this is how it is going to play out, at least in the US where we seem to be putting approximately zero political or corporate effort into planning for these possibilities. A violent class war seems far more likely of an outcome to me if we're being honest. | |
| ▲ | int_19h 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The alternative is indeed UBI, and the obvious way to fund it is to tax automation so that it actually scales to however many people end up without jobs. But for all the talk about UBI in techbro circles, it seems to never actually translate to any meaningful political moves. Microsoft, Amazon etc are pretty happy to throw millions of dollars at politicians to ensure that they can keep building their data centers, but UBI just gets lip service. | |
| ▲ | greekrich92 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What progress? Our planet is dying and those who have most loudly touted "Progress" are the ones killing it. If "Progress" means a massive immiserated underclass is necessary for it to proceed, then who is it for? The answer is obvious. | |
| ▲ | spicymaki 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Making up jobs to keep people employed isn't a viable solution to me. And what is? AI slop? There is no objective purpose to any of this, all of it is preference. I prefer that people have a way to express themselves in a way that gives them subjective meaning, maybe a bullshit job is a good enough solution. | |
| ▲ | esseph 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Making up jobs to keep people employed isn't a viable solution to me. That's what the TSA is in the US | |
| ▲ | alexashka 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Making up jobs to keep people employed isn't a viable solution to me. Supporting them in some way (re-training, UBI, service work, ...) seems like the only way forward Everyone works 20 hours/week. The 'problem' isn't what you think it is. The people in power are worried that lifting the boot off of the neck of the working class may result in loss of power for them. They are right. Hence the stalemate. | |
| ▲ | throwaway-11-1 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The people benefitting from the profits accumulated from layoffs would never allow their margins to be cut by having to pay for UBI. Why do people act like this even remotely on the political horizon? There will simply be an even larger underclass and the wealthy enclaves will build higher walls. “At least the companies will be more efficient” is such a cucked take, insane | | |
| ▲ | pessimizer 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | This is goofy. Your job isn't special and this already happened to a lot of other people while coders were laughing in libertarian. It doesn't suddenly get real when it happens to you. The people whose jobs were shipped overseas were physically stronger and less sheltered than you. If they couldn't stop it, your pencil arms and retreat into revolutionary cosplay fantasy certainly doesn't bode well for you. They weren't even fired because of an advance in technology, they were fired because we just dismantled workers rights and allowed every job to be shipped to China, Mexico, Indonesia, India, Bangladesh, the Philippines. And literally, now, the "opposition" is angrily protesting for free trade and for illegal workers with no rights; you all still don't get it. Automation raises productivity, and creates wealth that we can choose to share, even though "we" don't. Not lowering labor standards and not allowing jobs to be shipped out to poverty stricken countries with low labor standards would have just taken compassion and not being completely self-centered for at least 5 minutes a day. Fighting when you had something to lose rather than waiting until you have nothing. I'm supposed to make up a fake job for you? There won't even be Oxy for you to turn to. You'd better be happy with legal weed, even if you can barely afford it on your Taskrabbit income. | | |
| ▲ | throwaway-11-1 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | You really made an astounding number of assumptions which I don’t think you have the insight to extract from a single comment. You clearly have zero idea where I’m coming from so try to chill. I stand by my point that there is no political will among the current elites for meaningful distributional policies. For the record I am a staunch defender of worker rights in all industries and deeply despise neoliberal economics. Geez man |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | boh 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's interesting that the AI is taking job story is so prevalent in these sorts of posts even though there's zero indication of it in any financial analysis. Amazon and big tech companies like it are using AI as the smoke screen to cover up the obvious, which is these companies have lost their ability to grow exponentially. Since their stock price and debt demands this impossible growth, they are now starting the dying process. It will probably take years and maybe even decades, but they will continue to cut costs until they become the next Sears. |
| |
| ▲ | drawnwren 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | when you consider AMZN's p/e ratio is under 35 and WMT is closer to 45, what makes you think this? | | |
| ▲ | boh 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | P/E isn't a future projection. There is literally no analysis that asserts Amazon will achieve the same growth rate in the future that it achieved in the past. It will retain stock value by eating itself for a while (could be a long time), then die. | | |
| ▲ | drawnwren 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | But it’s priced at a growth rate less than Walmart’s. That’s hardly an extreme growth outlier. |
|
| |
| ▲ | sublinear 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I agree and I also think a lot of what used to require the cloud is now becoming local and private. Cost structures are changing everywhere, not just in big tech. Hiring has stayed about the same everywhere else and the job descriptions for an SWE in the normal corporate world seem focused on getting off AWS, GCP, etc. |
|
|
| ▲ | nxm 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Actual effective managers do much more than
"gathering information from folks below him, distilling it down and reporting that to people above him." |
| |
| ▲ | conscion 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Actual effective managers do much more And how many managers are effective vs. only information funnels? | | |
| ▲ | signal11 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Even “only” information funnels have value if they seek out valuable info, filter, curate. In reality some funnels in this context mutate the message they’re supposed to pass on :-) | | | |
| ▲ | avalys 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Firing a bunch of ineffective managers because they can easily be replaced by AI seems like a net improvement to me. | | | |
| ▲ | achenatx 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | the key for managers is like business owners 1) understand what success means for their area
2) assemble a team and remove roadblocks for them to achieve 1. | |
| ▲ | BobbyJo 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The bad ones tend not to be information funnels. |
| |
| ▲ | nitwit005 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In some organizations, the upper management generates a real burden on people below them with ever changing demands for information. I have to assume some of it serves a social, rather than practical purpose, like having people re-assure them that projects are going well. If that's the case, automation may just not make sense. | |
| ▲ | 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | m0llusk 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | might be able to get a fat contract fee from letting Amazon know about that | |
| ▲ | Ancalagon 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | "What would you say you do here?" |
|
|
| ▲ | diyseguy 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I have always felt that if I could do a job really well, do work that required no maintenance, was basically 'self-healing' so to speak, with documentation so clear and easy to understand that someone could pick up where I left off without asking me a single question. For me that was always my aesthetic and goal in any work I did. Yet, here I am, an experienced software engineer, unemployed for over a year now. It still seems to me the right ideal, so the 'karmic' outcome feels unjust really. |
|
| ▲ | baxtr 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Oh dear. I wish middle management was simply "gathering information" from the decks below and reporting it to the bridge. |
| |
| ▲ | aorloff 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Tell you what, why don't we get rid of management altogether and just have a flat org ? | | |
| ▲ | Bhilai 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > A few years into the company’s life, founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin actually wondered whether Google needed any managers at all. In 2002 they experimented with a completely flat organization, eliminating engineering managers in an effort to break down barriers to rapid idea development and to replicate the collegial environment they’d enjoyed in graduate school. That experiment lasted only a few months: They relented when too many people went directly to Page with questions about expense reports, interpersonal conflicts, and other nitty-gritty issues. And as the company grew, the founders soon realized that managers contributed in many other, important ways—for instance, by communicating strategy, helping employees prioritize projects, facilitating collaboration, supporting career development, and ensuring that processes and systems aligned with company goals. https://hbr.org/2013/12/how-google-sold-its-engineers-on-man... | | |
| ▲ | candiddevmike 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | IMO, this could be solved by having a finance team with good workflows and a real human resources team/psychologist on staff that would handle all of the interpersonal drama. It's an interesting anecdote but I don't think it was that great of an attempt or structured well enough to work. | | |
| ▲ | buran77 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | > this could be solved With a USB stick and FTP. It's very easy to underestimate a problem when you've never encountered it or tried to tackle it in practice. Your shallow dismissal gives that away and brings no insight. Human beings will always organically organize hierarchically. In a group one will have more initiative, one will be happier to be told what to do, etc. In the end informally you will end up with the same structure. And it's hell to deal with that when formally all have the same authority so none can override each other, but one guy just gathered enough support to do whatever he wants. Do you think someone far away from everything you do will have a magic "workflow" that tells them what to do about the budget you requested, about the strategic decision you need, or about your conflicts, about who has to do the nice jobs or the shitty ones? And why would they have any say, they're not the boss. Your logic is no better that those pretending today that a team of AI agents "with good workflows" can just replace all the programmers. | | |
| ▲ | metaketra an hour ago | parent [-] | | I think it could work if it was designed for it from the ground up. Google's experiment's lasted months, and was, what seems like a whim of the owners, where as a lot of the workers probably expected a traditional company. Valve the "game" company, has a relatively flat structure from what I've heard, and it's working pretty well for them, but they've also had it for a long time. So if you have a company, that works like that from the start, that people know it works like that, that it has support for it. You could make it work. I agree that forcing this structure everywhere wouldn't work, some people can work like this, others can't. |
|
| |
| ▲ | aorloff 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes this was a joke. Apparently not a well enough known joke, because a bunch of people took me seriously |
| |
| ▲ | tasty_freeze 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Why not get rid of job titles and just have people do whatever needs to be done? Because no one person is good at everything, and even if you managed to build a team of people who were good at everything, it is inefficient to make everyone keep up with all details of every aspect of the company so that they can be productive in an arbitrary role at the drop of a hat. Giving people a role allows them to specialize their knowledge and concentrate all their efforts into their area of expertise/competence. Managers fill a role. Sure, some managers are bad, and some workplaces have seemingly mostly bad managers, and it leads to cynical opinions about how managers are busy-work-making dolts who don't understand anything. Some employers have mostly good managers and I feel sorry for you if you have never had the experience. I'm 40 years into my EE career and I have always deflected efforts to make me a people manager or a project manager. I like being a grunt in the trenches solving problems at the bottom level, and a good manager increases their reports' productivity by shielding them from needing to deal with project management crap. I would have retired already except I've been blessed to have good managers for the past 20 years, while my managers have been attending umpteen resource allocation meetings and all the attendant report-making that requires. | |
| ▲ | Aurornis 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Been there, done that. It brings its own set of chaos and office politics. The shadow org structures can be worse than the official ones. | |
| ▲ | oblio 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Because social animals have hierarchical social structures. | | |
| ▲ | hackable_sand 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | We also have flat social structures, what is your point? | | |
| ▲ | oblio 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Really? How often and for how many people? Which ones dominate and are more frequent, flat or hierarchical? Which ones do we use for our most complex endeavors? |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | paxys 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Did you copy paste this from LinkedIn? |
| |
| ▲ | datsci_est_2015 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | lol thank you I was trying to see if anyone else also read this with a raised eyebrow. “Yes so these ICs and other non-management staff are going to be reporting to this LLM and then magic and executives are informed of everything they need to know.” |
|
|
| ▲ | toddmorey 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| “He should’ve been so aware that his job was going to be the first one cut, and he was responsible for building a tool to cut his own job” That tool was going to get built whether he did it or someone else did. Maybe only thing to do is buy time building it while actively looking elsewhere. |
| |
| ▲ | achenatx 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | the answer is build it again and start selling it to other companies. | |
| ▲ | Imustaskforhelp 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > “He should’ve been so aware that his job was going to be the first one cut, and he was responsible for building a tool to cut his own job” > That tool was going to get built whether he did it or someone else did. Maybe only thing to do is buy time building it while actively looking elsewhere. This has such a dark vibe to it that I am unable to explain. It really feels like an I was only following orders command just hoping that you don't get to the wrong side of this stick as they was hoping for At the same time protest isn't an option. It does feel like some form of active suffering for someone to write the replacement of themselves while the economy goes to complete dumpster fire and nobody's hiring (much). All while Completely pure form of AI slop goes up and up so even any interesting idea or anything will have to fight really hard for attention in public spaces like say show HN or other websites. So you are forced to pay "Internet rent" to the overlords like Google & Meta who will use the same money to then train better models (especially Google?) to continue this cycle. All while people lose their privacy and nobody even talks about it. With all the thousands of problems happening. Can we please just stop this circle just once and evaluate where things are going if they are net positive for humanity itself & if there is anything to stop this cycle. Fundamentally most countries are democracies. Yes there are lobbying efforts but one forgets that these large corpos pay to somehow pursuade you or the politician that you elect. Can someone smart in politics talk about such issues & raise them & a fight towards lobbying/corruption (all throughout the world?) be established. I guess this becomes way too broad of a goal but somehow I always end up feeling corruption and politics & money's lobbying connection can be a root cause of many issues (much throughout the world) |
|
|
| ▲ | jmspring 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There is a lot of middle management. I would include PMs in this. Salesforce does planning from Benioff down. Goals -> each report goals, etc. Planning based off goals - much horse trading. Planning from the lead/pm level - weekly - more horse trading. Reality was urgent stuff got taken care of. Literally over a two year period, outside fancy wording, the technical component of the initial goals maybe completed 30%. There are a lot of inefficiencies I can see what this manager at AWS was trying to optimize for. |
|
| ▲ | hintymad 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > He told me that he had worked to develop a tool that would replace effectively all of the middle management function that he was responsible for: gathering information from folks below him, distilling it down and reporting that to people above him. That sounds an organizational issue. I always thought that a manager should push product vision at their own level, get and organize resources, and assess the talent as fairly as possible. That is, a combination of the job of a general and a PM. Controlling the information may be necessary for survival, but it should not be the job description. |
| |
| ▲ | Mars008 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I always thought that a manager should push product vision at their own level, get and organize resources, and assess the talent as fairly as possible. LOL, reality is very different. Manager first of all is working to keep his position, second to get promoted. Most of them. For keeping he need to become irreplaceable. For that they create kill zone around eliminating competitors. Working against those with brain, not promoting, giving negative reviews, creating 'cases', taking credits for others job. Making those who can leave. I've seen a lot of this shit. This creates a local depressive shithole. It can go for decades in monopolies and in low competition markets. |
|
|
| ▲ | nipponese 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| usually this is called a program manager, not really a manager (like a people manager) per say... |
|
| ▲ | babyoil 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You should watch this movie: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1527793/ |
| |
| ▲ | mjevans 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Or Office Space (warning, Rated R for some language and crude distractions / conversations.) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0151804 Still, it documents the typical work culture of the US in the late 1990s / early 2000s. It's sad and amazing how much of that remains the same. |
|
|
| ▲ | 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | crystal_revenge 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| So much conversation is around AI replacing developers, but I've been to so many meetings where a middle-manager (gleefully) shows me some AI slop they produced to do their job and I think to myself "If you did this with AI, why don't I do this with AI and replace you?" Most experienced devs already know writing code is the easy part, it's really understanding the business requirements that takes time (I think a lot of junior devs don't understand this so they get overly enthusiastic about AI). But it turns out that most middle managers were already churning out slop to begin with so replacing them with AI is a big improvement. As an engineer, roughly speaking, every task AI helps me get done faster is roughly negated by someone else's AI slop I need to clean up. But when it comes to middle management, I can't tell the difference. I'm pretty sure most product roadmaps generated by AI are actually more sensible than those generated by clueless managers. |
|
| ▲ | pacifist 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Reminds me of the movie Office Space. |
|
| ▲ | learingsci 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Where was he from? Recent hires are sometimes the first to go, depending on certain other factors. |
|
| ▲ | varispeed 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > gathering information from folks below him I thought that information is only available through organic conversations by the watercooler and cross polination of teams. Does it mean you no longer will have to come to office as long as you talk to AI over Slack? Or are they going to slap laptop on a Roomba and still mandate office attendance? |
| |
|
| ▲ | motbus3 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If he was a middle manager it wasn't him doing the work anyway |
|
| ▲ | aprdm 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If that's his value add as a manager then that's a problem in itself |
|
| ▲ | tshaddox 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > It felt like watching someone who is about to be executed be responsible for building the gallows Perilaus of Athens designed the Brazen Bull, a hollow bronze statue used to roast victims alive. When he presented it to the tyrant Phalaris, Phalaris was so disgusted by the cruelty of the device that he ordered Perilaus to be the first person tested inside it. |
|
| ▲ | anon291 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Honestly he's probably doing fine
That man is clearly very smart and proactive. I'd be worried for the poor middle manager caught completely off guard. |
|
| ▲ | shermantanktop 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Undoubtedly his tool turned out to suck, and his managers realized that it made him faster but didn't eliminate the need for his role. "Every other manager" is a pipe dream and if it's true it means that group is pathetically inefficient and underutilizing the talents of even an average manager. That's what I'd say in 2026. 2-3 years from now, not sure. But right now, AI can't run a vending machine without selling too many tungsten cubes. |
|
| ▲ | robotswantdata 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| No offence, but this is 5% of what a middle manager does.
We automated this task years back without LLMs too. |
|
| ▲ | SpaceNoodled 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| He probably still lives there |
|
| ▲ | yieldcrv 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'm in a well funded somewhat greenfield org - not a startup - we use mcp servers of that specific ticket tracking system within the coding tools to handle ticket creation, assignment, tracking, status, completion, updated by what code is being hit. mostly inheriting existing workflows like git comments, pull requests, tickets referenced in those already, just AI writes those commit messages and PR comments too. reports about all of that are made by AI as well to the stakeholder that needs to see that distilled in their language. We won't be hiring middle management, no product managers, no engineering managers, VPs The only aspect we don't have solved is a buffer between sales/execs and engineers, but all other functions are automated away alongside other AI assisted coding that there actually is bandwidth for the schizophrenic ideas. Things that used to be tech debt and not prioritized by engineers without management suddenly are all solved, AI makes the cleanest REST API's I've ever seen, obscure verbs properly implemented immediately. Test cases all done. It's working really well and the friction with non technical PMs and hierarchies is gone its a 1 liner to add relevant mcp servers to Claude Code, and every ticket tracker already has an mcp server out for triaging between UX designers, we also just don't. we use an mcp server for UX, I can point playwright - which is usually used for testing your own site - at a competitor's website and feed all the UX information and implementation into Claude Code to promote the synthesis of an extremely advanced and already engaging design pattern into the project at this point, I would say its a lack of competence to manage a software project or org, any other way. Amazon's deep cuts are a shot across the bow to others that know they need to "do the needful", and will be watched closely |
|
| ▲ | theusus 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Source: Trust me bro |
| |
|
| ▲ | mayhemducks 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| If I set aside for a moment, and for the sake of argument, the fact that we all have to earn a living, why would anyone want a job where you distill a bunch of input from those "below you" and relay it to those "above you"? That sounds like a job I would never want to get out of bed to do. If I were one of the people fired, I would be so friggen happy I don't have to do this BS job anymore. |
| |
| ▲ | samus 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > If I set aside for a moment, and for the sake of argument, the fact that we all have to earn a living Congrats for making an argument completely disassociated from reality. | |
| ▲ | Imustaskforhelp 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I guess people need money to buy food to survive? > I would be so friggen happy I don't have to do this BS job anymore. Alright the freezer's empty with no food and you have no money. Probably a family to manage with kids and demands or say have hobbies which costs money. I am an extremely frugal person myself but even I will admit that there is just no way that one can purely just exist without a FIRE & even within FIRE some aspects of FIRE want you to have a job but not only just any job but the job you like. Judging from GP's comment. I feel like the person they are talking about might not have saved enough money so they were a bit worried about it but even if they did, losing a job still impacts mentally and they (didn't?) want to go through such transition. I guess the point is to really save money & be frugal at times. It's usually something which benefits me but I am single right now but I can imagine that with a family & a wife & different dynamics, frugality can be hard to live by when you have to convince your wife to say down-size or your children to & it can impact one's freedom probably. Personally wishing to have a lot of savings to go through when single before getting married. Unironically this & some sense of getting respect within society & getting the prospectus of some good dating connection in such sense is the reason why (many) people look for any jobs. I will admit that if someone offers me such a job, the offer to take will be hard to resist (even though I would consider I have a stronger than average desire for a job that I truly like/enjoy fwiw) |
|