The New York Times has approximately 6,000 employees, of which over 2,000 work in engineering. In the AI era, each engineer can output 5 to 10x as much as before, and there are more employees than work to be done. Hence employees work pet projects like this one, that few users are asking for.

▲

arjie 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There's no way anyone knows where the limit is of a feature set that is valid for AI enhancement. Substitutions and changes in amounts across a dataset that is not fully pre-taxonomized seems like a pretty good use of AI to be honest.

We've used it for modifications to enjoyable effect a few years ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46131280

So it's a matter of execution etc. to see which features stick.

▲

mmonaghan 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Few users are asking for it but many are running similar workflows themselves separately. It's a huge value add imo and exactly the right thing an app dev team should be working on.

You rarely get users asking for your next big leap and you often get many users asking for small tweaks (all slightly different).

▲

sashank_1509 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don’t want to be the one to go there but I think it’s ridiculous that NyT has 2000 engineers. GTA 5 had listed 150 SWE in its credits.

	▲	Grombobulous 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I think we are getting ahead of ourselves if we are to believe the 2,000 number without verifying it.
	▲	shimman 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Advertising and marketing tech increases the bloat, I agree. I too think it's insane that Meta has 20,000 engineers for their entire product suite but when you develop for a malware featureset the bloat comes with it.

▲

jibalt 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That is not how/why this came about.

▲

snowe2010 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> In the AI era, each engineer can output 5 to 10x as much as before

Citation needed