Not sure what these guys are studying but can tell you in the real world - essentially zero AI rollout in accounting world for anything serious.
We've got access to some fancy enterprise copilot version, deep research, MS office integration and all that jazz. I use it diligently every day...to make me a summary of today's global news.
When I try to apply it to actual accounting work. It hallucinates left, right & center on stuff that can't be wrong. Millions and millions off. That's how you get the taxman to kick down your door. Even simple "are these two numbers the same" get false positives so often that it's impossible to trust. So now I've got a review tool that I can't trust the output of? It's like a programming language where the equality (==) symbol has a built in 20% random number generator and you're supposed to write mission critical code with it.
I keep trying to get it to review my personal credit card statements. I have my own budget tracking app that I made, and sometimes there's discrepancies. Resolving this by hand is annoying, and an LM should be able to do it: scrape the PDF, compare the records to mine, find the delta.
I've tried multiple models over the course of 6 months. Yesterday it told me I made a brilliant observation, but it hasn't managed to successfully pin down a single real anomaly. Once it told me the charges were Starbucks, when I had not been to a Starbucks—it's just that Starbucks is a probable output when analyzing credit card statements.
And I'm only dealing with a list of 40 records that I can check by hand, with zero consequences if I get it wrong beyond my personal budgeting being off by 1%.
I can't imagine trusting any business that leans on this for inappropriate jobs.
>> I keep trying to get it to review my personal credit card statements. I have my own budget tracking app that I made, and sometimes there's discrepancies. Resolving this by hand is annoying, and an LM should be able to do it: scrape the PDF, compare the records to mine, find the delta.
This is a perfect example of what people don't understand (or on HN keep forgetting). LLMs do NOT follow instructions, they predict the next word in text and spit it out. The process is somewhat random, and certainly does not include an interpreter (executive function?) to execute instructions - even natural language instructions.
There's a very fun video about accounting by Dan Toomey [0] that I think really drives home the point that accounting is:
1) Extremely important
2) Not that glamorous
I always think of accountants as the "nerds" of the finance world. I say this lovingly - I think in another life I would have become an accountant. I find it very fascinating. I worked at a company that worked with auditing datasets, so I knew much more about accounting that I would have otherwise.
Nobody ever wants to listen to accountants because they either are giving you bad news, or telling you the things that you should be doing. No one can deny how important they are, despite how much it seems like everyone wants to get rid of them.
An accounting story I love is how my old company got a lot of business because of Enron. Part of the reason that Enron was caught was due to their audit fees.
Their audit fees were reporting that Arthur Andersen was charging for a huge percentage of non-auditing work (audit fees report what percentage was auditing related and not). This was a huge red flag.
My company was the only one at the time that kept track of audit fees, and so a huge number of people paid to access that data stream.
If one day I quit programming, maybe I'll get my CPA.
Yeah the boring part is definitely true. It is a good path to a reasonably high paycheque with bulletproof job security. To take your Enron example - even when it turned into a smoking crater and all business stopped they still had accountants working on the wreckage years later.
Very nearly went programming (now do that as a hobby). Still not sure how I feel about that choice, especially around mental stimulation. But if we're about to hit a recession/depression then it's not a bad place to be. The space I'm in has future revenues locked in for 10+ years.
"...can tell you in the real world - essentially zero AI rollout in accounitng world for anything serious."
The jobs the reseearchers concluded were affected were "unregulated" ones where there are no college education or professional certification requirements, e.g.,
receptionists
translators
software "engineers"
"Not sure what these guys are studying..."
Apparently, they studied payroll data from ADP on age, job title and headcount together with, who would have guessed, data from an AI company (Anthropic)
It should also be noted that there are some pretty big flaws in the analysis. They mention "the distribution of firms using ADP services does not exactly match the distribution of firms across the broader US economy," but make no attempt to adjust their analysis for it. They also drop 30% of the data for which there is no job title recorded. With such a skewed sample, it's hard to tell how the analysis is supposed to generalize.
This seems to assign a cause without merit other than AI is the buzzword of the day.
Receptionist jobs down.. this has been the case for a while, and does include some AI, but AVR and general speech recognition and matching has gotten pretty good for a while, I'd say AI is half a step back.
Translators, maybe AI, but again, speech recognition in general is pretty good and not strictly an AI thing... but I'll give that one credit.
Software Engineers, maybe it's more about the (I don't even know the right current FAANG acronym anymore) companies that have laid off tens of thousands in the past few years and largely replaced (if at all) them with either contract or h1b workers? Only to grow short term margins on already profitable companies.
Yup, using AI for any serious tax calculation or even advice is a REALLY BAD idea.
A close relative is a top expert in US Trust & Estate Tax law working at a well-known BigLaw firm. Of course they have substantial AI initiatives, integration with their system, mandatory training, etc.
She finds tha AI marginally useful for some things, but overall not very much and there are serious errors, particularly the types of errors only a top expert would catch.
One of the big examples is that in the world of T&E law, there are a lot of mediocre (to be kind) attorneys who claim expertise but are very bad at it (causing a lot of work for the more serious firms and a lot of costs & losses for the intended heirs). The mediocre-minus attorneys of course also write blogs and papers to market themselves, often in greater volume than the top experts. Many of these blogs/papers are seriously WRONG, as in giving the exact opposite of the right advice.
Everyone here sees where this is going. The AI has zero ability to reason or figure out which parts of its training input are from actual top experts and which are dreck. The AI can not reason, and can not even validly check their 'thinking' against existing tax code (which is massive), or the regulations and rulings (which are orders of magnitude more massive). So, the AI gives advice that is confident, cheerful, and WRONG.
Worse yet, the LLM's advice is wrong in ways only a top expert would know, and in ways that will massively screw the heirs. But the errors will likely only be discovered decades later, when it is too late to fix.
Seriously, do NOT use LLMs for tax advice, unless you are also consulting a TOP professional. And skipping the LLM part is best.
My relative is quite frustrated and annoyed by the whole thing, which should be more helpful with these massive code/regs/rulings, but finds it often more work than just using the standard WestLaw/Lexis legal database searches.
> It's like a programming language where the equality (==) symbol has a built in 20% random number generator and you're supposed to write mission critical code with it.
<bad joke>
Why are we talking about JavaScript in a thread about AI?
</bad joke>
It's not about using LLM for calculation, it's about automation and agentic. The integration and deployment in enterprise will be a matter of time. Hiring fresh out of school used to be labor and training, but knowing in 5 years the industry will shrink while the senior staff will keep the boat floating aided by AI, the cutoff time is now. There is no need to keep sending young generation to industries that're bound to be automated enmass. And these are in the immediate near term.
Other industries are yet to see how AI will impact, it may or may not ever. But in some science fields, new graduated PhDs are seen the same hiring freeze. The complete outsourcing of school knowledge to LLM is coming to our life real soon, the only factor not making it faster is the data center and energy, which are being worked on to resolve in a couple years. These are the reason AI is not yet as cheap as search and ready for consumer market. But it's cheap or will be cheaper enough in two years for enterprise at a cost lower than human resource. The answer is obvious when looking at it on a 5 year horizon.
There seems to be this dream of Tax AI Software that will just do all of the taxes. But other than using AI as a fancy text search, I don't see it happening for a long long time. LLMs can't do arithmetic or count.
Yeah - classifying an invoice into building rent or say printer ink it'll have some success. So we'll see some of it at the very bottom end.
>LLMs can't do arithmetic or count.
Yes. The fancy copilot stuff does use pandas/python to look at excel files so stuff like add up a table does work sometimes, but the parameters going into the pandas code need to make sense too in the garbage in garbage out sense. The base LLM doesn't seem to understand the grid nature of Excel so it ends up looking at the wrong cells or misunderstands how headings relate to the numbers etc.
It'll get better but there doesn't seem to be the equivalent of "use LLM to write boilerplate code" in this world.
There are a lot of jobs which don't require meticulous accuracy - coming up with marketing plans, press releases, writing HR policies, reading and summarising reports, etc.
Even in accounting I am sure you could use AI at times to help write or read your emails or summarise legislation or IRS rulings. Have it drive Excel or your financial systems directly? No, not yet.
> There are a lot of jobs which don't require meticulous accuracy - coming up with marketing plans, press releases, writing HR policies, reading and summarising reports, etc.
I'm sorry but you think marketing plans, press releases, HR policies and report summaries do not need to be accurate? What sort of organization do you work with??
LLMs basically can't do arithmetic directly, trying to get them to do so is a skill issue. Most models can and will happily write and execute code to do that work instead.
What I described is a setup that DOES have pandas & python access and uses it heavily to figure out the excel files. Which is neat, but the output is still wrong
Nothing super sophisticated - the key part is telling it the categories I want. It seems really good at sticking to that out of the box and seems to do 2-3 items for each category.
```Summarize today's news stories in concise bullet points focusing on relevance and clarity. Organize the summary into the following sections:
* World Events: Major global developments and international headlines
* Geopolitics: Political tensions, alliances or diplomatic events
* London: Local news and developments specific to London
* Supply chains: etc
```
One thing I've had ZERO luck is making it look for forward looking economic indicators. No idea why but it doesn't work at all
The accounting note is not true in the traditional sense. The field in the US is just getting offshored to India/PH/Eastern Europe for better or for worse. There is even a big push to lower the educational requirements to attain licensure in the US (Big 4 partners want more bodies and are destroying the pipeline for US students). Audit quality will continue to suffer and public filers will issue bunk financials if they aren't properly attested to.
It's amusing to see programmers in the US promoting remote work.
Do those people really believe they're the most intellectually superior to the rest of the world? If a job can be done purely remotely, what stops the employer from hiring someone who lives in a cheaper place?
As a US-based developer I do not feel threatened by the "cheap" offshore developers I encounter. I've repeatedly been hired to clean up after offshore developers who:
* lied about their capabilities/experience to get the job,
* failed to grok requirements through the language barrier,
* were unable to fix critical bugs in their own code base,
* committed buggy chatgpt output verbatim,
* and could not be held liable because their firm is effectively beyond the reach of the US legal system.
In a couple of projects I've seen a single US based developer replace an entire offshore team, deliver a superior result, and provide management with a much more responsive communication loop, in 1% of the billable hours. The difference in value is so stark that one client even fired the VP who'd lead the offshoring boondoggle.
Software talent is simply not as fungible as some MBAs would like to believe.
> what stops the employer from hiring someone who lives in a cheaper place?
I've worked with remote workers from around the world. Let me preface by saying there are of course exceptions but:
What I've found is that most often Americans exhibit self-starting and creativity. What I mean by that is non-us workers are great if you give them a specific task, even a really hard task.
But if you give them a nebulous problem, or worse, a business outcome, they tend to perform much more poorly. And I rarely see non-americans say something like "I think our customers would like it if we added X to the product, can I work on that?".
I don't think it's because Americans are better at this -- I think it's cultural. America has a much higher risk tolerance than the rest of the world. Failing is considered a good thing in the USA. And the USA is much more entrepreneurial than the rest of the world.
These two things combined create a culture difference that makes a business difference.
Additionally, what I've found is that the exceptions tend to move here because their risk taking is much more acceptable here (or they are risk takers willing to move across the world, hard to say which way the causation goes).
I'm one of those offshore people that live in a cheaper place and works remotely for a US co.
The majority of people in the company are still in the US, and even for the East coast, the timezones are just annoying to work around sometimes. Either I need to do late days, or they have to do uber early mornings/SUPER late days, don't even get me started on West coast where the hours basically never match. And I'm in the closest timezone I can be for the US.
And there's also a cultural aspect to it. I simply work differently to how the US bosses expect, because my employer has to respect worker's rights if they want to hire people in the EU unless they hire them as contractors (they still have many protections in that case though). I clock off at exactly 17:00, I never answer messages outside working hours, I don't do overtime or anything resembling it etc. And yes, they don't pay me the same as I would in the US, but it's really not that much lower, plus life is just cheaper, even here in the Netherlands. I get paid less relatively, but from what I can tell other that the people getting paid obscene amounts, my quality of life is higher than most of my US counterparts
I've noticed my US colleagues are much more willing to waste away their lives for their employer as well, even if there's no real expectation for them to do so, and the business obviously prefers those kind of employees over the ones like me.
So there's still plenty of reasons to keep hiring US-based devs, from cultural to logistical. Maybe you guys should work on getting some actual worker protections first, though...
As some have said, it's not about being superior. Common language, background, maybe overlaps in education, and avoiding cultures like those at Indian offshore companies where there is a lot of churn, maybe 1 Sr person you "hired" really farming the work out to multiple Jr people.
It’s amusing to see these comments as if American tech companies don’t already have offices all over the world.
Even a mid-size tech company I worked for had over a dozen small offices around the world to collect as many qualified developers as they could. They had some remote work too.
Still hired a lot of Americans. Thinking that remote work will be the end of American workers has been the driving force behind outsourcing pushes for decades, but it hasn’t worked that way.
As an outsider I think Americans still have the upper hand in, for lack of a better term, work ethic.
A lot of that stems from a lack of job security. Stuff like suddenly being locked out of your work email/slack or being escorted out of company premises is largely unheard of in the rest of the world.
As a point of comparison: I'm a contractor based in a popular outsourcing destination. My contract is extended well over a month before it expires and I would need to do something particularly harmful to be let go just like that, as our client values continuity of services and will hold the agency accountable should that suffer.
Over here if a job listing mentions "US client" it typically means considerably more work for considerably more pay. Some go for that, others opt for more relaxed roles. I can't imagine having US jobs as the only option.
You’ll get downvoted but in my experience, which may not be representative of the entire population, this is true.
A mid-size US tech company I know well went fully remote after a lot of insistence from the workforce, prior to the pandemic they were fully in office.
Soon enough they started hiring remotely from EU, and now the vast majority of their technical folks are from there. The only US workers remaining are mostly GTM/sales. I personally heard the founder saying “why should we pay US comp when we can get extremely good talent in EU for less than half the cost”. EU workers, on average, also tend to not switch job as frequently, so that’s a further advantage for the company.
Once you adapt to remote-only, you can scoop some amazing talent in Poland/Ukraine/Serbia/etc for $50k a year.
It doesn't matter what they promote, remote labor is an economic reality. It's not as if employers are going to forget they can offshore your job because you show up to the office 8am sharp every morning.
The moment they can replace you for cheaper, they will, whether you insist on working remotely or not.
It's not intellectual superiority. They've already offshored all the other jobs they can. If they could offshore my job, they would. But it's very hard to find reliable talent anywhere, much less offshore. It is easier to find the talent here, and there's more of it. Then there's the complexity of hiring, the timezones, language barrier, and all the other small complications that add up.
Once you have world-class experts all over the developing world, my job might disappear. But you need experience to get there, which they aren't getting, because they aren't here. It's privilege 101: if you have it, you get more of it; if you don't have it, you don't get any of it. We're very privileged to be high-value domestic workers.
And by the way, remote work has been a thing here for decades, yet the calculation hasn't changed. Our remote jobs are still safe.
And being "superior" doesn't necessarily mean extraordinary coding skills. The vast majority of code to be written doesn't require that. What it requires however is a combination of common sense and good understanding of the underlying business. This is in short supply in many of the locations the jobs are being offshored to. But let's be honest, it was also on short supply in the corporate IT departments being offshored, though not quite to the same degree.
Regulation is for when businesses cannot regulate themselves.
In many larger companies also, nationstate threats and national security are a trending issue.
If you deal with a lot of PII, outsourcing your data processing pipelines to China isn't going to fly with Congress when you get subpoena'ed for a round with Hawley.
Yes. I think American programmers are at a local optimum for combining ingenuity and work ethic. You can get more ingenuity vs work ethic or the other way around elsewhere, but the American blend seems to be best.
That's my argument against looking for a 100% remote job. Even if the company is happy with you now, eventually there will be new management that sees your job as low-hanging fruit for expense reduction.
I have no comment on your strawmanning about programmers thinking they're geniuses or something.
But I've yet to meet an accountant who puts in their 40 hours a week and somehow manages to grow their backlog rather than shrink it.
Whereas bad programmers who will do that exist in spades.
Clearly the two professions are not identical.
That said, I've had two mind bogglingly bad accountants on my payroll in the past who made $100K+ mistakes if we hadn't caught them and fired the fuck out of those dumbasses. One was American and one was Filipino.
You're getting downvoted, but IMO what you're saying is exactly true, and I've seen it happen.
In my experience, pre-2015 or so, offshoring was limited in its utility. Communication was a bitch because videoconferencing from everyday laptops wasn't quite there yet, and a lot of the favored offshoring centers like India had horrible time zone overlap with the US. And perhaps most importantly, companies as a whole weren't used to fully supporting remote colleagues.
Now, though, if I interact with the majority of my colleagues over Zoom/Teams/Meet anyway, what difference does it matter where they're sitting? I've worked with absolutely phenomenal developers from Argentina, Poland and Ukraine, and there was basically no difference logistically between working with them and American colleagues. Even the folks in Eastern Europe shifted their day slightly later so that we would get about 4 hours of overlap time, which was plenty of time for communication and collaboration, and IMO made folks even more productive because it naturally enforced "collaboration hours" vs. "heads down hours".
I understand why people like remote, but I agree, US devs pushing for remote should understand they're going to be competing against folks making less than half their salaries.
Oh look, another person who thinks engineers are commodities, especially in a field as loosely defined and unregulated as software engineering.
They always ask “if a job can be done remote why not just hire a foreigner in a cheap place?” and never ask “if the foreigner was so good as the American engineer why wouldn’t they be getting paid the same as the American?”
It’s like they think companies are dumb and there is some undiscovered engineering arbitrage opportunity waiting to be tapped that will end the high 6 figure salaries of American software engineers forever.
And yet, since the 90s, software engineer salaries only go up. Millions of Indians flood the foreign markets, but American tech salaries only go up. Covid hits and everyone goes remote, but the salaries only go up. They always go up. American tech holds a supremacy over the world that you will likely not see the end of in your lifetime. There is so much money, so much risk taking, so much drive to dominate, other countries are generations behind.
But hey keep doing what you’re doing. Maybe you’ll save a couple bucks while your competitors gobble up the market with far better engineering talent. Not “equivalent” talent: better talent..
>>Do those people really believe they're the most intellectually superior to the rest of the world? If a job can be done purely remotely, what stops the employer from hiring someone who lives in a cheaper place?
capitalism dictates that a capable remote person will not keep working for a single employer, as it will be a waste of time.
he/she will work for multiple employers (overemployed and such), maximizing earnings, thus it will constantly keep a gap between in-office and remote workers
I mean, while this might be true, Europe is full to the brim of developers who speak fluent English, and yet cost maybe a third of their US counterparts. Programming is really quite far from being a global market.
The reports from the usual "offshoring centers" aren't exactly inspiring. It's a bloodbath over there.
Seems like the capabilities of current systems map onto "the kind of labor that gets offshored" quite well. Some of the jobs that would get offloaded to India now get offloaded to Anthropic's datacenters instead.
I think you are conflating 2 things. AI could be going after new entry level jobs in software engineering. I am not a professional engineer but an accountant by trade (I like writing software as a hobby lol) but this article looks like evidence that IIT grads will have a harder time getting these jobs that AI is attacking. My comment rests on the fact that the report doesn't really reconcile with AI destroying entry level jobs for accounting, but rather this type of work being offshored to APAC/India. There are still new COEs being built up for mid cap companies for shared services in India to this day and I don't mean Cognizant and Wipro, but rather the end customer being the company in question with really slick offices there.
How many of these jobs are getting offshored because of AI?
Language barriers, culture, and knowledge are some of the biggest challenges to overcome for offshoring. AI potentially solves many of those challenges
Language barriers: LLMs are language models and all of the major ones are built in English, speaking that language fluently is surely a prerequisite to interacting with them efficiently?
Knowledge: famously LLMs "know" nothing and are making things up all of the time and sometimes approximate "knowledge"
Maybe for software engineering but not for accounting. I've had to interface with many offshored teams and interviewed at places where accounting ops were in COE centers in EU/APAC.
Do you have any actual evidence that supports the headline? The article does not. It simply mentions 13% decline in relative employment and then blames AI with no actual evidence. Given what I know about the current state of AI and off-shoring, I think off-shoring is a million times more likely to be the culprit than AI.
The entire account department at my firm has moved to Poland. That’s nice for them, but as a US citizen it does mean the writing is on the wall. On the plus side I learned a fun fact. Malgorzata is a more common name than I had ever imagined.
IT help was outsourced to India years ago. I expect them to be replaced with AI the minute their government stops handing the firm big contracts because I’ve never spoken to anyone from that group who was actually better than a chat bot.
Have you seen how the profession has worked post SOX? Did you know 2016 was the peak year where you had accounting students enrolled in uni in the states? I want you to think laterally about this.
I wonder how much this actually matters? I understand that for an auditor, having a quality reputation matters. But if all audits from all firms are bad, how much would the world economy suffer?
Likewise for the legal profession, if all judges made twice the number of mistakes, how much would the world suffer?
> Likewise for the legal profession, if all judges made twice the number of mistakes, how much would the world suffer?
Is this hyperbole? It seems like the real question being asked here is "would the world be worse off without deterministic checks and balances", which I think most people would agree is true, no?
The current system is not long term stable, and poor accounting is part of the reason more people don't know that. Even worse accounting would speed up the decline.
Then you would have to think twice about the company you may be giving money to (ie the stock market and private bank loans). That's the whole objective of this. Every company is going to need an accountant in one way or another and you don't really need to follow strict GAAP for management requirements (what else is EBIDTA for if anything?), but it's something completely different than saying: I made x dollars and spent y dollars, here is what I have and what I owe, please give me money.
At the end of the day it is a question of convenience/standards, if GAAP didn't exist maybe firms could use a modified accrual standard that is wholly compliant with tax reporting and that's it.
This past year, I’ve seen a lot of entry-level jobs quietly disappear. It’s not that people are getting laid off, it’s that no one’s hiring beginners anymore. What’s really missing isn’t just the jobs, it’s the chance to grow. If there’s nowhere to start, how are new people supposed to get in and learn?
Were there ever that many low-level Junior jobs though?
In my experience, almost everyone in college would get an internship Junior / Senior year and convert into an FTE after graduation. Those that were not so talented or not so lucky usually struggled to find work, taking many months to finally land a job. Most typically at a Booz Allen Hamilton type of place that was just throwing bodies into seats.
At all of my employers, I’ve never really seen any openings for Juniors, only Mid and Senior positions. The few Juniors we did bring on outside of an internship pipeline were either internal transfers, e.g. a SOC analyst given a chance or a nepotism type of hire.
I got out of school 15 years ago so its been a while now, but at that time there were a ton of junior roles.
I got a CS bachelors from a decent state school, nothing fancy, and everyone I kept in touch with had found an entry level role pretty quickly after graduation.
I did do an internship and had an offer from them, but the psy was pretty low and I really didn't want to move where they were. It was a bit stressful turning that down early senior year without a backup yet, but I ended up with quite a few interviews and an offer before graduation.
Unfortunately i think many of those jobs can also be attributed to general economic health post low interest rates.
Companies now need to leave pre-revenue and turn a profit, or if you’re an established company you need to cut costs/increase margins from other economic headwinds (tariffs, inflation, gov policies etc)
A Junior dev (and most devs onboarding) will typically require 6-8 months to start being able to meaningfully contribute, then there’s a general oversight/mentorship for a few years after.
Yes they produce, however I think junior’s market salary plus the opportunity cost lost of the higher salaried mid and senior level in mentoring is a hard pill to swallow.
The team i work on is stretched very thin, and even after layoffs (which management agreed they went too far with) it’s pulling teeth to get another dev to build things companies are begging for and even willing to separately pay cash upfront for us to build
If you’re getting into the current job market as a junior, you’ll likely need to go heavy in the buzzword tech, accept a position from a smaller company that pays substantially less, then in 1-2 years job hop into a higher paying mid level role (not to say 1-2 years makes anyone mid level imo)
Sadly, they will just have to try harder. It is still doable especially for an American, and I'm not a fan of these doomsayers' prophesying. There is still hope because TikTok and video games are putting most young people in a trance.
Video and graphical designers? I’m not saying this with optimism, but rather as as observation.
I know a handful of digital marketers, that work for different marketing firms - and the use of GenAI for those tasks have exploded. Usually tasks which they either had in-house people, or freelancers do the work.
No it can't replace graphical designers except in low stakes projects. Companies won't risk their projects on cheap AI with other larger costs on the line.
As a graphic designer, no, AI is not even close to making the profession obsolete. Unless you are talking about the folks who create social media cards and stuff, even that is a stretch.
I think the initial job loss from AI will come from having individual workers be more productive and eliminate the need to have larger teams to get the same work done.
Eventually, maybe. Right now I see a lot more people wasting time with AI in search of these promised efficiencies. A lot of companies reducing headcount are simply hiding the fact that they are deprioritizing projects or reducing their overall scope because the economy is shit (I know, I know - but it feels worse than reported IMO) and that's the right business cycle thing to do. If you're dramatic and take the DOGE/MAGA approach to management, just fire everyone and the important issues will become obvious where investment is actually needed. It's a headcount 'zero based budget' played out IRL. The truth is, there is a lot of fat to be cut from most large companies and I feel like it's the current business trend to be ruthless with the blade, especially since you have AI as a rose colored scapegoat.
The way I like to describe it is that you can't go from 1 developer to 0 thanks to AI, but you might be able to go from 10 to 9. Although not sure what the exact numbers are.
I can think of a handful of people I work with who could be replaced by LLM. The hallucinations would be less frequent than the screw-ups the current humans make.
It could at least consolidate 5 of those people into 1 with increased efficiency.
It doesn't have to replace people on a one-for-one basis to cause job losses. Let's say LLMs make your developers 50% more efficient. Doesn't it stand to reason you can lay off the lowest performing 33% and get the same amount (or more) of work?
No, it does not stand, because you think linearly. Companies can't simply drop 33% of employees because there is competition. If competition uses both humans and AI they will get more value from both. No AI has sufficient autonomy or capability to be held accountable for its mistakes.
There is less upswing in reducing costs than in increasing profits. Companies want to increase profits actually, not just reduce costs which will be eaten away by competition. In a world where everyone has the same AIs, human still make the difference.
Have you ever been at a company where the limiting factor was finding stuff to build? I've never seen one personally.
If there's any productivity increase, they'll just build even more stuff.
(And that's if we agree about a 50% increase I'd say 5% is already generous)
This is what HasanAbi mentioned the other day. Betting on AI to do a job (especially if it fails to replace it) is a double economic whammy. You get rid of original people who did the job, and then you don't have funding for other things (also includes people) because you need to recover the AI costs.
Collective delusion about AI (or similar craze) can be large enough to actually tank the economy.
I used to hire someone who worked part time from home to bookmark some of the key pages in thousands of pdfs just so that I can directly jump to those pages instead of spending time myself on finding those pages.
AI can now do it very cheap so no need to give that job to a human anymore.
> I can’t think of a single job that modern AI could easily replace.
It could replace many workers, perhaps sacrificing quality, but that's considered quite acceptable by those making these decisions because of the huge labor cost savings.
It also could raise the quality of work product for those working at a senior level by allowing them to rapidly iterate on ideas and prototypes. This could lower the need for as many junior workers.
I agree its a popular excuse, however unlike the blockchain craze there’s legitimate use cases of productivity improvements with AI.
And if you can (in some cases) substantially increase productivity, then logically you can reduce team size and be as productive with less.
With the right prompting, you can cut a copywriting team in half easily.
My business has one copywriter/strategist, who I’ve automated the writing part by collecting transcripts and brand guidelines from client meetings. Now she can focus on much higher quality edits, work with other parts of the strategy pipeline, and ultimately more clients than before.
I can easily imagine a corp with 100 junior copywriters quickly reducing headcount
The problem is people (not sure if it's coping) present an argument that either it can perfectly replace someone 100% or it's an useless fad.
Even increasing the average productivity by 10-20% is huge and in some areas (like copywriting as you've mentioned) the gains are much bigger than that. Of course there's also the argument of the infinite demand (i.e. demand will always overshadow any gains in supply caused by AI) but evidence is never provided.
That I agree with. The problem with the assertion that AI took all these jobs is that the normalised point from which they took for assessing job losses is right at the peak of epic programmer hiring.
> I can’t think of a single job that modern AI could easily replace.
There are tons of internship-like positions where the employer just wants someone to prepare powerpoints and stuff of that nature, that they then edit because the intern doesn’t do a very good job at powerpoint.
Organizations are choosing to eliminate workers rather than amplify them with AI because they'd rather own 100% of diminished capacity than share proceeds from exponentially increased capacity. That's the rent extraction model consuming its own productive infrastructure.
The Stanford study documents organizations systematically choosing inferior economic strategies because their rent-extraction frameworks cannot conceptualize workers as productive assets to amplify.
This reveals that these organizations are economic rent-seekers that happen to have productive workers, not production companies that happen to extract rents. When forced to choose between preserving rent extraction structures or maximizing value creation, they preserve extraction even at the cost of destroying productive capacity. So what comes next?
When you don’t need as many people because of automation, you also don’t need them to fight your wars. You use drones and other automated weapons. You don’t need things like democracy because that was to prevent people from turning to revolution, and that problem has been solved with automated weapons. So then you don’t really need as many people anymore, so you stop providing the expensive healthcare, food production, and water to keep them all alive
Yeah this is what we are seeing today, also its not just junior jobs going, according to Amazon they are using it to get rid of expensive senior employees while they are actually holding onto juniors using ai tools.
We have seen a lot of use of h1b and outsourcing despite the massive job shortage. Seeing lots of fake job sites filled with ai generated fake openings and paid membership for access to "premium jobs."
They're using ICE to effectively pay half the country to murder the other half, but the ICE budget is limited so that automated systems can then gun down the ICE community to replace 99.9% of humans with machines.
Ultimately this is great for Russia because they'll still be able to invade even if they have only 300 soldiers left in their military, after they hit a low orbit nuke blast to shutdown the Ai US, basically only Melania swinging her purse at the troops will be one of the few left alive to resist.
"Furthermore, employment declines are concentrated in occupations where AI is more likely to automate, rather than augment, human labor."
No mention of rent-seeking.
No evidence they are being economically short-sighted.
> they'd rather own 100% of diminished capacity than share proceeds from exponentially increased capacity
They're using cheap AI to replace more expensive humans. There's no reason to think they are missing some exponential expansion opportunity that keeping those humans would achieve, and every reason to think otherwise.
I hope AI fuels a re-independence of many industries by making business software discovery and integration cheap and easy, every plumber with more than 10 years experience should own their company with low cost software running it, the efficiency gains from consolidating resources a la private equity for marketing and book keeping go away in an AI powered world
> This reveals that these organizations are economic rent-seekers that happen to have productive workers, not production companies that happen to extract rents.
Your perspective is so contrary to reality I'm actually not sure if you're trolling or not. There is no such thing as pure value creation. In order for labor to create value, it must be aligned with the company's value proposition, i.e. what convinces customers to pay for the value that the company provides. Half the people off in the corner building something that they think is valuable are actually building something that customers do not care about, won't pay more for, and increase the company's maintenance burden.
Keeping labor aligned with value creation is the whole game. If it wasn't, then all these rent-seeking-first enterprises would have fired their layers and layers of middle management a long time ago; the company needs to pay them a salary (reducing profits) but they don't write any code / "produce any value". All these massive corporations would have moved to a flat management hierarchy a long time ago, if labor was truly capable of aligning itself to improving value generation; and if you think there's some nefarious/conspiratorial reason why massive corporations don't do that, then most of them would have been out-competed a long time ago by co-ops with flat management hierarchies that could produce the same value at a lower price due to lower administration costs.
Needing to hire employees is a necessary evil for businesses. Aligning employees is hard. Motivating employees is hard. Communication is hard. Businesses do not exist to provide people with jobs, which are created out of sheer necessity, and are destroyed when that necessity goes away.
You got there in the end. Hiring people is a necessary evil and ai allows companies to massive reduce the necessity of that evil. Having done budgeting and forecasting for a wide range or organizations companies will do anything to avoid hiring an employee. I’ve seen companies spend 3x what an employee would cost just to avoid the increased headcount.
The forces of capital do not want to share a single penny and are solely focused on getting to a place of rent.
What data or special insight do you have as to whether amplifying or eliminating is actually productive?
This argument is vacuous if you consider a marginal worker. Let's say AI eliminates one worker, Bob. You could argue "it was better to amplify Bob and share the gains". However, that assumes the company needs more of whatever Bob produces. That means you could also make an argument "given that the company didn't previously hire another worker Bill ~= Bob, it doesn't want to share gains that Bill would have provided blah blah". Ad absurdum, any company not trying to keep hiring infinitely is doing rent extraction.
You could make a much more narrow argument that cost of hiring Bill was higher than his marginal contribution but cost of keeping Bob + AI is lower than their combined contribution, but that's something you actually need to justify. Or, at the very least, justify why you know that it is, better than people running the company.
ChatGPT (might have) made a few superfluous email jobs obsolete and the people responding to this comment are acting like we’re standing on the threshold of Terminator 3.
Don't underestimate how much of the economy is "superfluous email jobs". Have you seen how stupid the average person is?[0] These people need jobs too.
[0] I was going to going to mark this as sarcasm but then I remembered that the US elected Donald Trump as president, 2 times so far, so I'm going to play it straight.
Implying "superfluous email jobs" isn't a significant portion of the international job market. Most people that work in offices fit under this definition.
I’m suss about this paper when it makes this claim:
“where AI is more likely to
automate, rather than augment , human labor.”
Where is AI currently automating human labor? Not Software Engineering. Or - what’s the difference between AI that augments me so I can do the job of three people and AI that “automates human labor”
I was also curious about this. Table A1 on page 56 lists examples of positions that are automated vs augmented, and these are the positions the authors think are going to be most augmented (allegedly taken from [0]):
- Chief Executives
- Maintenance and Repair Workers, General
- Registered Nurses
- Computer and Information Systems Managers
After skimming [0], I can't seem to find a listing of jobs that would be augmented vs automated, just a breakdown of the % of analyzed queries that were augmenting vs automating, so I'm a bit confused where this is coming from.
When the Stanford paper looked at augment vs automate, they used the data from Anthropic's AI Economic Index. That paper defined the terms like this:
We also analyze how AI is being used for tasks, finding 57% of usage suggests augmentation of human capabilities (e.g., learning or iterating on an output) while 43% suggests automation (e.g., fulfilling a request with minimal human involvement).
From the data, software engineers are automating their own work, not augmenting. Anthropic's full paper is here:
Every day when I am out in the city, I am amazed by how many jobs we have NOT managed to replace with AI yet.
For example, cashiers. There are still many people spending their lives dragging items over a scanner, reading a number from a screen, holding out their hand for the customer to put money in, and then sorting the coins into boxes.
Self checkout has been a thing for ages. Heck in Japan the 711s have cashiers but you put the money into a machine that counts and distributes change for them.
Supermarkets are actually getting rid of self checkouts due to crime. Surprise surprise, having less visible "supervision" in a store results in more shoplifting than having employees who won't stop it anyway.
It’s also just resulting in atrocious customer experience.
I can go to Safeway or the smaller chain half a block away.
The Safeway went all in on self checkouts. The store is barely staffed, shelves are constantly empty, you have to have your receipt checked by security every time, they closed the second entrance permanently, and for some reason the place smells.
Other store has self checkouts but they also have loads of staff. I usually go through the normal checkout because it’s easier and since they have adequate staff and self checkout lines it tends to be about the same speed to.
End result is I don’t shop at Safeway if I can avoid it.
Cashiers should not, and will not prevent theft. They're not paid nearly enough to get in danger, and it is not their job.
I'm sure you can find videos of thefts in San Francisco if you need a visual demonstration. No cashier is going to jump in front of someone to stop a theft.
You mean ordering kiosks and self-checkout machines? We have automated it, it's just not everywhere has implemented it.
The one I'm desperately waiting for is serverless restaurants—food halls already do it but I want it everywhere. Just let me sit down, put an order into the kitchen, pick it up myself. I promise I can walk 20 feet and fill my own drink cup.
You seem to like self-checkout processes. I don't. I avoid any place where I have to interact with a screen. Be it a screen installed on-premise or the screen on my phone. It is not a relaxing experience for me.
Japan does this a lot of places, and it makes the experience much easier.
And I think the entire mid and low range restaurants could replace servers with a tablet and people would be happier. I'm not sure how it doesn't make more money for the restaurant too, making it so easy to order more during a meal.
Serverless restaurants have been common in Australia for decades. You just get a buzzer and then need to go pick up your food when it is ready. There's a single person behind the bar to take orders and pour beer/wine/soda.
Seems like perfect option for robots (not humanoid). Bring me my food. You can still keep people in kitchen for a bit, but well servers in many restaurants are not really needed.
Pharmacists are my favourite. They're a human vending machine that is bad at counting and reading. But law protects them. Pretty good regulatory capture.
Please actually understand what pharmacists actually do and _why_ AI is not a good replacement for them yet, unless you want to die of certain drugs interactions.
Pharmacists are a fantastic example. My pharmacy is delivered my prescription by computer. They text me, by computer, when it's ready to pick up. I drive over there … and it isn't ready, and I have to loiter for 15 minutes.
Also, after the prescription ends, they're still filling it. I just never pick it up. The autonomous flow has no ability to handle this situation, so now I get a monthly text that my prescription is ready. The actual support line is literally unmanned, and messages given it are piped to /dev/null.
The existing automation is hot garbage. But C-suite would have me believe our Lord & Savior, AI, will fix it all.
Lots of people are sceptical but I cannot imagine a use for entry level positions anymore. At my work everybody got to calling AI "the intern", which is not confusing because we do not have and have no use for interns.
So what are the long term risks when senior staff leaves and those need to be replaced with new seniors that have never seen the existing work vs. promoting younger people who knows the projects and practises?
Long... term... risk? What is this archaic concept? I just want to get into a position where I can extract rent from children when they grow up. Why do I need to worry about this so called long term risk?
These days normally what corporates do is bring in people from abroad who have the skills.
The idea that companies would seek to train up domestic workers if there is a skill shortage is outdated today – even if theoretically this might be good for the domestic workforce. It's just cheaper and easier to import the skills needed.
Traditionally, interns exist as a well-vetted and well-shaped supply of labor (which is very difficult to find through the traditional hiring process). The work they complete is secondary. Are companies going to stop needing good employees? Is nobody going to need to work in 40 years when all the current employees are phased out?
If interns existed like that they haven’t in the 21st century. They are a free disposable short term labour to be ripped through.
Also what company do you know of thinks in 40 year terms? The longest budgeting process I’ve been part of has been 3 years and the year 3 numbers were understood to be pure wish fulfilment
Readit News
We've got access to some fancy enterprise copilot version, deep research, MS office integration and all that jazz. I use it diligently every day...to make me a summary of today's global news.
When I try to apply it to actual accounting work. It hallucinates left, right & center on stuff that can't be wrong. Millions and millions off. That's how you get the taxman to kick down your door. Even simple "are these two numbers the same" get false positives so often that it's impossible to trust. So now I've got a review tool that I can't trust the output of? It's like a programming language where the equality (==) symbol has a built in 20% random number generator and you're supposed to write mission critical code with it.
I've tried multiple models over the course of 6 months. Yesterday it told me I made a brilliant observation, but it hasn't managed to successfully pin down a single real anomaly. Once it told me the charges were Starbucks, when I had not been to a Starbucks—it's just that Starbucks is a probable output when analyzing credit card statements.
And I'm only dealing with a list of 40 records that I can check by hand, with zero consequences if I get it wrong beyond my personal budgeting being off by 1%.
I can't imagine trusting any business that leans on this for inappropriate jobs.
This is a perfect example of what people don't understand (or on HN keep forgetting). LLMs do NOT follow instructions, they predict the next word in text and spit it out. The process is somewhat random, and certainly does not include an interpreter (executive function?) to execute instructions - even natural language instructions.
1) Extremely important
2) Not that glamorous
I always think of accountants as the "nerds" of the finance world. I say this lovingly - I think in another life I would have become an accountant. I find it very fascinating. I worked at a company that worked with auditing datasets, so I knew much more about accounting that I would have otherwise.
Nobody ever wants to listen to accountants because they either are giving you bad news, or telling you the things that you should be doing. No one can deny how important they are, despite how much it seems like everyone wants to get rid of them.
An accounting story I love is how my old company got a lot of business because of Enron. Part of the reason that Enron was caught was due to their audit fees.
Their audit fees were reporting that Arthur Andersen was charging for a huge percentage of non-auditing work (audit fees report what percentage was auditing related and not). This was a huge red flag.
My company was the only one at the time that kept track of audit fees, and so a huge number of people paid to access that data stream.
If one day I quit programming, maybe I'll get my CPA.
[0]: https://youtu.be/vL4INHaK-sA?si=jIvFQVtrXU6tjh-1
Very nearly went programming (now do that as a hobby). Still not sure how I feel about that choice, especially around mental stimulation. But if we're about to hit a recession/depression then it's not a bad place to be. The space I'm in has future revenues locked in for 10+ years.
The jobs the reseearchers concluded were affected were "unregulated" ones where there are no college education or professional certification requirements, e.g.,
"Not sure what these guys are studying..."Apparently, they studied payroll data from ADP on age, job title and headcount together with, who would have guessed, data from an AI company (Anthropic)
https://digitaleconomy.stanford.edu/publications/canaries-in...
This study has not been peer-reviewed
Receptionist jobs down.. this has been the case for a while, and does include some AI, but AVR and general speech recognition and matching has gotten pretty good for a while, I'd say AI is half a step back.
Translators, maybe AI, but again, speech recognition in general is pretty good and not strictly an AI thing... but I'll give that one credit.
Software Engineers, maybe it's more about the (I don't even know the right current FAANG acronym anymore) companies that have laid off tens of thousands in the past few years and largely replaced (if at all) them with either contract or h1b workers? Only to grow short term margins on already profitable companies.
A close relative is a top expert in US Trust & Estate Tax law working at a well-known BigLaw firm. Of course they have substantial AI initiatives, integration with their system, mandatory training, etc.
She finds tha AI marginally useful for some things, but overall not very much and there are serious errors, particularly the types of errors only a top expert would catch.
One of the big examples is that in the world of T&E law, there are a lot of mediocre (to be kind) attorneys who claim expertise but are very bad at it (causing a lot of work for the more serious firms and a lot of costs & losses for the intended heirs). The mediocre-minus attorneys of course also write blogs and papers to market themselves, often in greater volume than the top experts. Many of these blogs/papers are seriously WRONG, as in giving the exact opposite of the right advice.
Everyone here sees where this is going. The AI has zero ability to reason or figure out which parts of its training input are from actual top experts and which are dreck. The AI can not reason, and can not even validly check their 'thinking' against existing tax code (which is massive), or the regulations and rulings (which are orders of magnitude more massive). So, the AI gives advice that is confident, cheerful, and WRONG.
Worse yet, the LLM's advice is wrong in ways only a top expert would know, and in ways that will massively screw the heirs. But the errors will likely only be discovered decades later, when it is too late to fix.
Seriously, do NOT use LLMs for tax advice, unless you are also consulting a TOP professional. And skipping the LLM part is best.
My relative is quite frustrated and annoyed by the whole thing, which should be more helpful with these massive code/regs/rulings, but finds it often more work than just using the standard WestLaw/Lexis legal database searches.
<bad joke> Why are we talking about JavaScript in a thread about AI? </bad joke>
Other industries are yet to see how AI will impact, it may or may not ever. But in some science fields, new graduated PhDs are seen the same hiring freeze. The complete outsourcing of school knowledge to LLM is coming to our life real soon, the only factor not making it faster is the data center and energy, which are being worked on to resolve in a couple years. These are the reason AI is not yet as cheap as search and ready for consumer market. But it's cheap or will be cheaper enough in two years for enterprise at a cost lower than human resource. The answer is obvious when looking at it on a 5 year horizon.
>LLMs can't do arithmetic or count.
Yes. The fancy copilot stuff does use pandas/python to look at excel files so stuff like add up a table does work sometimes, but the parameters going into the pandas code need to make sense too in the garbage in garbage out sense. The base LLM doesn't seem to understand the grid nature of Excel so it ends up looking at the wrong cells or misunderstands how headings relate to the numbers etc.
It'll get better but there doesn't seem to be the equivalent of "use LLM to write boilerplate code" in this world.
Even in accounting I am sure you could use AI at times to help write or read your emails or summarise legislation or IRS rulings. Have it drive Excel or your financial systems directly? No, not yet.
I'm sorry but you think marketing plans, press releases, HR policies and report summaries do not need to be accurate? What sort of organization do you work with??
```Summarize today's news stories in concise bullet points focusing on relevance and clarity. Organize the summary into the following sections:
* World Events: Major global developments and international headlines
* Geopolitics: Political tensions, alliances or diplomatic events
* London: Local news and developments specific to London
* Supply chains: etc ```
One thing I've had ZERO luck is making it look for forward looking economic indicators. No idea why but it doesn't work at all
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
Do those people really believe they're the most intellectually superior to the rest of the world? If a job can be done purely remotely, what stops the employer from hiring someone who lives in a cheaper place?
* lied about their capabilities/experience to get the job,
* failed to grok requirements through the language barrier,
* were unable to fix critical bugs in their own code base,
* committed buggy chatgpt output verbatim,
* and could not be held liable because their firm is effectively beyond the reach of the US legal system.
In a couple of projects I've seen a single US based developer replace an entire offshore team, deliver a superior result, and provide management with a much more responsive communication loop, in 1% of the billable hours. The difference in value is so stark that one client even fired the VP who'd lead the offshoring boondoggle.
Software talent is simply not as fungible as some MBAs would like to believe.
I've worked with remote workers from around the world. Let me preface by saying there are of course exceptions but:
What I've found is that most often Americans exhibit self-starting and creativity. What I mean by that is non-us workers are great if you give them a specific task, even a really hard task.
But if you give them a nebulous problem, or worse, a business outcome, they tend to perform much more poorly. And I rarely see non-americans say something like "I think our customers would like it if we added X to the product, can I work on that?".
I don't think it's because Americans are better at this -- I think it's cultural. America has a much higher risk tolerance than the rest of the world. Failing is considered a good thing in the USA. And the USA is much more entrepreneurial than the rest of the world.
These two things combined create a culture difference that makes a business difference.
Additionally, what I've found is that the exceptions tend to move here because their risk taking is much more acceptable here (or they are risk takers willing to move across the world, hard to say which way the causation goes).
The majority of people in the company are still in the US, and even for the East coast, the timezones are just annoying to work around sometimes. Either I need to do late days, or they have to do uber early mornings/SUPER late days, don't even get me started on West coast where the hours basically never match. And I'm in the closest timezone I can be for the US.
And there's also a cultural aspect to it. I simply work differently to how the US bosses expect, because my employer has to respect worker's rights if they want to hire people in the EU unless they hire them as contractors (they still have many protections in that case though). I clock off at exactly 17:00, I never answer messages outside working hours, I don't do overtime or anything resembling it etc. And yes, they don't pay me the same as I would in the US, but it's really not that much lower, plus life is just cheaper, even here in the Netherlands. I get paid less relatively, but from what I can tell other that the people getting paid obscene amounts, my quality of life is higher than most of my US counterparts
I've noticed my US colleagues are much more willing to waste away their lives for their employer as well, even if there's no real expectation for them to do so, and the business obviously prefers those kind of employees over the ones like me.
So there's still plenty of reasons to keep hiring US-based devs, from cultural to logistical. Maybe you guys should work on getting some actual worker protections first, though...
Timezone overlap is also a big one.
Even a mid-size tech company I worked for had over a dozen small offices around the world to collect as many qualified developers as they could. They had some remote work too.
Still hired a lot of Americans. Thinking that remote work will be the end of American workers has been the driving force behind outsourcing pushes for decades, but it hasn’t worked that way.
A lot of that stems from a lack of job security. Stuff like suddenly being locked out of your work email/slack or being escorted out of company premises is largely unheard of in the rest of the world.
As a point of comparison: I'm a contractor based in a popular outsourcing destination. My contract is extended well over a month before it expires and I would need to do something particularly harmful to be let go just like that, as our client values continuity of services and will hold the agency accountable should that suffer.
Over here if a job listing mentions "US client" it typically means considerably more work for considerably more pay. Some go for that, others opt for more relaxed roles. I can't imagine having US jobs as the only option.
A mid-size US tech company I know well went fully remote after a lot of insistence from the workforce, prior to the pandemic they were fully in office.
Soon enough they started hiring remotely from EU, and now the vast majority of their technical folks are from there. The only US workers remaining are mostly GTM/sales. I personally heard the founder saying “why should we pay US comp when we can get extremely good talent in EU for less than half the cost”. EU workers, on average, also tend to not switch job as frequently, so that’s a further advantage for the company.
Once you adapt to remote-only, you can scoop some amazing talent in Poland/Ukraine/Serbia/etc for $50k a year.
The moment they can replace you for cheaper, they will, whether you insist on working remotely or not.
Once you have world-class experts all over the developing world, my job might disappear. But you need experience to get there, which they aren't getting, because they aren't here. It's privilege 101: if you have it, you get more of it; if you don't have it, you don't get any of it. We're very privileged to be high-value domestic workers.
And by the way, remote work has been a thing here for decades, yet the calculation hasn't changed. Our remote jobs are still safe.
Time zone differences, language barriers and cultural differences proved insurmountable.
Hybrid remote seems to work quite well, on the other hand.
In many larger companies also, nationstate threats and national security are a trending issue.
If you deal with a lot of PII, outsourcing your data processing pipelines to China isn't going to fly with Congress when you get subpoena'ed for a round with Hawley.
But alas, such a system is fundamentally impossible. Physics just won't allow it.
But I've yet to meet an accountant who puts in their 40 hours a week and somehow manages to grow their backlog rather than shrink it.
Whereas bad programmers who will do that exist in spades.
Clearly the two professions are not identical.
That said, I've had two mind bogglingly bad accountants on my payroll in the past who made $100K+ mistakes if we hadn't caught them and fired the fuck out of those dumbasses. One was American and one was Filipino.
In my experience, pre-2015 or so, offshoring was limited in its utility. Communication was a bitch because videoconferencing from everyday laptops wasn't quite there yet, and a lot of the favored offshoring centers like India had horrible time zone overlap with the US. And perhaps most importantly, companies as a whole weren't used to fully supporting remote colleagues.
Now, though, if I interact with the majority of my colleagues over Zoom/Teams/Meet anyway, what difference does it matter where they're sitting? I've worked with absolutely phenomenal developers from Argentina, Poland and Ukraine, and there was basically no difference logistically between working with them and American colleagues. Even the folks in Eastern Europe shifted their day slightly later so that we would get about 4 hours of overlap time, which was plenty of time for communication and collaboration, and IMO made folks even more productive because it naturally enforced "collaboration hours" vs. "heads down hours".
I understand why people like remote, but I agree, US devs pushing for remote should understand they're going to be competing against folks making less than half their salaries.
They always ask “if a job can be done remote why not just hire a foreigner in a cheap place?” and never ask “if the foreigner was so good as the American engineer why wouldn’t they be getting paid the same as the American?”
It’s like they think companies are dumb and there is some undiscovered engineering arbitrage opportunity waiting to be tapped that will end the high 6 figure salaries of American software engineers forever.
And yet, since the 90s, software engineer salaries only go up. Millions of Indians flood the foreign markets, but American tech salaries only go up. Covid hits and everyone goes remote, but the salaries only go up. They always go up. American tech holds a supremacy over the world that you will likely not see the end of in your lifetime. There is so much money, so much risk taking, so much drive to dominate, other countries are generations behind.
But hey keep doing what you’re doing. Maybe you’ll save a couple bucks while your competitors gobble up the market with far better engineering talent. Not “equivalent” talent: better talent..
capitalism dictates that a capable remote person will not keep working for a single employer, as it will be a waste of time.
he/she will work for multiple employers (overemployed and such), maximizing earnings, thus it will constantly keep a gap between in-office and remote workers
Seems like the capabilities of current systems map onto "the kind of labor that gets offshored" quite well. Some of the jobs that would get offloaded to India now get offloaded to Anthropic's datacenters instead.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-05-30/tough-...
So, that doesn't seem like a likely culprit unless you have some convincing evidence.
Language barriers, culture, and knowledge are some of the biggest challenges to overcome for offshoring. AI potentially solves many of those challenges
Isn't it exactly the opposite?
Language barriers: LLMs are language models and all of the major ones are built in English, speaking that language fluently is surely a prerequisite to interacting with them efficiently?
Knowledge: famously LLMs "know" nothing and are making things up all of the time and sometimes approximate "knowledge"
The H1B pipeline has not decreased at all whereas millions of American workers have been laid off.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
IT help was outsourced to India years ago. I expect them to be replaced with AI the minute their government stops handing the firm big contracts because I’ve never spoken to anyone from that group who was actually better than a chat bot.
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
I wonder how much this actually matters? I understand that for an auditor, having a quality reputation matters. But if all audits from all firms are bad, how much would the world economy suffer?
Likewise for the legal profession, if all judges made twice the number of mistakes, how much would the world suffer?
Is this hyperbole? It seems like the real question being asked here is "would the world be worse off without deterministic checks and balances", which I think most people would agree is true, no?
At the end of the day it is a question of convenience/standards, if GAAP didn't exist maybe firms could use a modified accrual standard that is wholly compliant with tax reporting and that's it.
In my experience, almost everyone in college would get an internship Junior / Senior year and convert into an FTE after graduation. Those that were not so talented or not so lucky usually struggled to find work, taking many months to finally land a job. Most typically at a Booz Allen Hamilton type of place that was just throwing bodies into seats.
At all of my employers, I’ve never really seen any openings for Juniors, only Mid and Senior positions. The few Juniors we did bring on outside of an internship pipeline were either internal transfers, e.g. a SOC analyst given a chance or a nepotism type of hire.
I got a CS bachelors from a decent state school, nothing fancy, and everyone I kept in touch with had found an entry level role pretty quickly after graduation.
I did do an internship and had an offer from them, but the psy was pretty low and I really didn't want to move where they were. It was a bit stressful turning that down early senior year without a backup yet, but I ended up with quite a few interviews and an offer before graduation.
Companies now need to leave pre-revenue and turn a profit, or if you’re an established company you need to cut costs/increase margins from other economic headwinds (tariffs, inflation, gov policies etc)
A Junior dev (and most devs onboarding) will typically require 6-8 months to start being able to meaningfully contribute, then there’s a general oversight/mentorship for a few years after.
Yes they produce, however I think junior’s market salary plus the opportunity cost lost of the higher salaried mid and senior level in mentoring is a hard pill to swallow.
The team i work on is stretched very thin, and even after layoffs (which management agreed they went too far with) it’s pulling teeth to get another dev to build things companies are begging for and even willing to separately pay cash upfront for us to build
If you’re getting into the current job market as a junior, you’ll likely need to go heavy in the buzzword tech, accept a position from a smaller company that pays substantially less, then in 1-2 years job hop into a higher paying mid level role (not to say 1-2 years makes anyone mid level imo)
No one wants to hire juniors, but when the alternative is too expensive they are an acceptable solution.
Or if you have some incentive structure where you can get more work out of them like consultancies.
With a market flooded with senior people accepting a paycut for a job why even attempt hiring juniors?
I can’t think of a single job that modern AI could easily replace.
I know a handful of digital marketers, that work for different marketing firms - and the use of GenAI for those tasks have exploded. Usually tasks which they either had in-house people, or freelancers do the work.
Now they just do it themselves.
It could at least consolidate 5 of those people into 1 with increased efficiency.
There is less upswing in reducing costs than in increasing profits. Companies want to increase profits actually, not just reduce costs which will be eaten away by competition. In a world where everyone has the same AIs, human still make the difference.
This is known as Jevons Paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
Either it’s a cover for something or people are a bit too overzealous to believe in gains that haven’t materialised yet.
(And that's if we agree about a 50% increase I'd say 5% is already generous)
Collective delusion about AI (or similar craze) can be large enough to actually tank the economy.
AI can now do it very cheap so no need to give that job to a human anymore.
It could replace many workers, perhaps sacrificing quality, but that's considered quite acceptable by those making these decisions because of the huge labor cost savings.
It also could raise the quality of work product for those working at a senior level by allowing them to rapidly iterate on ideas and prototypes. This could lower the need for as many junior workers.
And if you can (in some cases) substantially increase productivity, then logically you can reduce team size and be as productive with less.
With the right prompting, you can cut a copywriting team in half easily.
My business has one copywriter/strategist, who I’ve automated the writing part by collecting transcripts and brand guidelines from client meetings. Now she can focus on much higher quality edits, work with other parts of the strategy pipeline, and ultimately more clients than before.
I can easily imagine a corp with 100 junior copywriters quickly reducing headcount
Even increasing the average productivity by 10-20% is huge and in some areas (like copywriting as you've mentioned) the gains are much bigger than that. Of course there's also the argument of the infinite demand (i.e. demand will always overshadow any gains in supply caused by AI) but evidence is never provided.
That I agree with. The problem with the assertion that AI took all these jobs is that the normalised point from which they took for assessing job losses is right at the peak of epic programmer hiring.
> I can’t think of a single job that modern AI could easily replace.
That I am less sure of.
When you don’t need as many people because of automation, you also don’t need them to fight your wars. You use drones and other automated weapons. You don’t need things like democracy because that was to prevent people from turning to revolution, and that problem has been solved with automated weapons. So then you don’t really need as many people anymore, so you stop providing the expensive healthcare, food production, and water to keep them all alive
We have seen a lot of use of h1b and outsourcing despite the massive job shortage. Seeing lots of fake job sites filled with ai generated fake openings and paid membership for access to "premium jobs."
They're using ICE to effectively pay half the country to murder the other half, but the ICE budget is limited so that automated systems can then gun down the ICE community to replace 99.9% of humans with machines.
Ultimately this is great for Russia because they'll still be able to invade even if they have only 300 soldiers left in their military, after they hit a low orbit nuke blast to shutdown the Ai US, basically only Melania swinging her purse at the troops will be one of the few left alive to resist.
You want to sell your stuff to someone, tho. So, unless you find a way to automate consumption as well, you do need people and lots of it.
"Furthermore, employment declines are concentrated in occupations where AI is more likely to automate, rather than augment, human labor."
No mention of rent-seeking.
No evidence they are being economically short-sighted.
> they'd rather own 100% of diminished capacity than share proceeds from exponentially increased capacity
They're using cheap AI to replace more expensive humans. There's no reason to think they are missing some exponential expansion opportunity that keeping those humans would achieve, and every reason to think otherwise.
Competition would fix a whole lot of problems.
Feudalism.
Ancient egypt (elite in pyramids, slaves otherwise) is more likely.
Your perspective is so contrary to reality I'm actually not sure if you're trolling or not. There is no such thing as pure value creation. In order for labor to create value, it must be aligned with the company's value proposition, i.e. what convinces customers to pay for the value that the company provides. Half the people off in the corner building something that they think is valuable are actually building something that customers do not care about, won't pay more for, and increase the company's maintenance burden.
Keeping labor aligned with value creation is the whole game. If it wasn't, then all these rent-seeking-first enterprises would have fired their layers and layers of middle management a long time ago; the company needs to pay them a salary (reducing profits) but they don't write any code / "produce any value". All these massive corporations would have moved to a flat management hierarchy a long time ago, if labor was truly capable of aligning itself to improving value generation; and if you think there's some nefarious/conspiratorial reason why massive corporations don't do that, then most of them would have been out-competed a long time ago by co-ops with flat management hierarchies that could produce the same value at a lower price due to lower administration costs.
Needing to hire employees is a necessary evil for businesses. Aligning employees is hard. Motivating employees is hard. Communication is hard. Businesses do not exist to provide people with jobs, which are created out of sheer necessity, and are destroyed when that necessity goes away.
The forces of capital do not want to share a single penny and are solely focused on getting to a place of rent.
This argument is vacuous if you consider a marginal worker. Let's say AI eliminates one worker, Bob. You could argue "it was better to amplify Bob and share the gains". However, that assumes the company needs more of whatever Bob produces. That means you could also make an argument "given that the company didn't previously hire another worker Bill ~= Bob, it doesn't want to share gains that Bill would have provided blah blah". Ad absurdum, any company not trying to keep hiring infinitely is doing rent extraction.
You could make a much more narrow argument that cost of hiring Bill was higher than his marginal contribution but cost of keeping Bob + AI is lower than their combined contribution, but that's something you actually need to justify. Or, at the very least, justify why you know that it is, better than people running the company.
Deleted Comment
[0] I was going to going to mark this as sarcasm but then I remembered that the US elected Donald Trump as president, 2 times so far, so I'm going to play it straight.
“where AI is more likely to automate, rather than augment , human labor.”
Where is AI currently automating human labor? Not Software Engineering. Or - what’s the difference between AI that augments me so I can do the job of three people and AI that “automates human labor”
- Chief Executives
- Maintenance and Repair Workers, General
- Registered Nurses
- Computer and Information Systems Managers
After skimming [0], I can't seem to find a listing of jobs that would be augmented vs automated, just a breakdown of the % of analyzed queries that were augmenting vs automating, so I'm a bit confused where this is coming from.
[0]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.04761
We also analyze how AI is being used for tasks, finding 57% of usage suggests augmentation of human capabilities (e.g., learning or iterating on an output) while 43% suggests automation (e.g., fulfilling a request with minimal human involvement).
From the data, software engineers are automating their own work, not augmenting. Anthropic's full paper is here:
https://arxiv.org/html/2503.04761v1
If your job is to swing a hammer, then drill robot augments your job (your job is now swing hammer and drill hole).
How that is different from drill bot automating human driller's job is an exercise left to the reader.
If the field has a future.
The paper says one of those is impacted, and the other isn't.
So, yeah, not only that's what the GP is asking, but I'd like to know it too.
For example, cashiers. There are still many people spending their lives dragging items over a scanner, reading a number from a screen, holding out their hand for the customer to put money in, and then sorting the coins into boxes.
How hard can it be to automate that?
Self checkout has been a thing for ages. Heck in Japan the 711s have cashiers but you put the money into a machine that counts and distributes change for them.
Supermarkets are actually getting rid of self checkouts due to crime. Surprise surprise, having less visible "supervision" in a store results in more shoplifting than having employees who won't stop it anyway.
I can go to Safeway or the smaller chain half a block away.
The Safeway went all in on self checkouts. The store is barely staffed, shelves are constantly empty, you have to have your receipt checked by security every time, they closed the second entrance permanently, and for some reason the place smells.
Other store has self checkouts but they also have loads of staff. I usually go through the normal checkout because it’s easier and since they have adequate staff and self checkout lines it tends to be about the same speed to.
End result is I don’t shop at Safeway if I can avoid it.
I'm sure you can find videos of thefts in San Francisco if you need a visual demonstration. No cashier is going to jump in front of someone to stop a theft.
And if so, why can't we detect it via camera + AI?
The one I'm desperately waiting for is serverless restaurants—food halls already do it but I want it everywhere. Just let me sit down, put an order into the kitchen, pick it up myself. I promise I can walk 20 feet and fill my own drink cup.
And I think the entire mid and low range restaurants could replace servers with a tablet and people would be happier. I'm not sure how it doesn't make more money for the restaurant too, making it so easy to order more during a meal.
But it's good if both are available, as apparently there will be customers for both.
Deleted Comment
Also, after the prescription ends, they're still filling it. I just never pick it up. The autonomous flow has no ability to handle this situation, so now I get a monthly text that my prescription is ready. The actual support line is literally unmanned, and messages given it are piped to /dev/null.
The existing automation is hot garbage. But C-suite would have me believe our Lord & Savior, AI, will fix it all.
The idea that companies would seek to train up domestic workers if there is a skill shortage is outdated today – even if theoretically this might be good for the domestic workforce. It's just cheaper and easier to import the skills needed.
Also what company do you know of thinks in 40 year terms? The longest budgeting process I’ve been part of has been 3 years and the year 3 numbers were understood to be pure wish fulfilment
Dead Comment