alt Hacker NewsWhat is happening to jobs? Separating AI hype from reality
Comments
I open this discussion thread and literally the first two top-level comments I see contradict each other:
> I find that productivity follows a Pareto distribution (80:20 rule) and that AI is a sharper tool in that it enables the already productive to be proportionally more productive and this effect increases as the intelligence of AI increases. So 80:20 becomes a 90:10, 95:5, 99:1 etc.
> Big caveat to the productivity claim is that it’s concentrated in lesser experienced engineers and vanishes or goes negative with highly experienced engineers.... LLMs move your baseline towards the mean. If you are below average it improves and if you are above it hinders.
I find that productivity follows a Pareto distribution (80:20 rule) and that AI is a sharper tool in that it enables the already productive to be proportionally more productive and this effect increases as the intelligence of AI increases. So 80:20 becomes a 90:10, 95:5, 99:1 etc. I also think that corporate bureaucratic change is laggy so change there will still be rather slow. I think where change will be rapid is when the most productive employees leave the company to create a new smaller company to compete with it, so there will be a displacement of medium to large companies by much smaller ones. On one hand this greater competition of more efficient companies will result in an increased in consumer surplus, on the other hand it will result in mass economic displacement and a collapse of the tax base. I think AI has only recently been good enough to do this and it takes time to spin up competing companies so I wouldn’t expect to see this effect in any lagging indicators just yet. From personal experience, I’m well down the path of commoditizing my niche industry where I can practically give away a better version of the top tier software and still personally make a lot of money. Additionally it would be counter productive to alert my competitors to this new reality. I know I’m not the only person doing this, so this multiplied by a bunch of industries would be absolutely world changing.
Why does the unemployment chart show a slow rise in unemployment for a year or more before covid started? This does not agree with the data from the BLS, which showed unemployment spiked very suddenly in March 2020. https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-une...
Also, what is “AI exposure” in 2015? LLMs hadn’t been invented yet. I did just read some of the cited paper. Essentially the quintiles boil down to use of computers, not really use of AI as we know it today. I know LLMs aren’t all AI, but the thing that’s missing is the distinction between “AI” that can play chess and LLMs that can actually do your job, which have only existed for maybe a year.
Recently poked around the job market to see what I qualify for in this day and age. Working as a solo builder in my org I would say that I have done enough in the last 18 months to consider myself “with it”.
What I found was pretty brutal. Companies asking for 4 years of agentic AI experience… pardon?
Then it hit me.
Oh they are all making shit up now and have no bar that anyone can hit because they are believing in the hype without understanding the fundamentals.
GREAT. Even as I climb the AI-Native ranks, I apparently am unqualified for any AI-Native job.
Big caveat to the productivity claim is that it’s concentrated in lesser experienced engineers and vanishes or goes negative with highly experienced engineers.
This intuitively makes sense and generally agrees with my experience. LLMs move your baseline towards the mean. If you are below average it improves and if you are above it hinders.
But also in my experience, my memory retention of the work done with an LLM is worse than doing it myself self. This leads me to believe that the lesser experienced engineers are not gaining experience!
My tinfoil hat says that this is what tech CEOs want. They want workers that are low skilled and can be paid less.
The biggest impact of AI at my job are LLM code generators for software engineers. That's only scratching the surface of what AI can do for enterprises. My company doesn't yet have the orientation, inclination or technical expertise to unlock the true power of AI for our business goals. We're stuck buying packaged solutions from third parties and aren't integrating layers of intelligence in our environment.
I doubt we're unique. Chat bots are useful. But it will take years, possibly decades for work to transform to due to AI. Probably longer for everyday life. The diffusion of new technology, even something as profound as AI, has to fight the friction and realities of the real world. Always has.
A couple of important points to note:
1. Most of the productivity studies in Figure 3 about are from the 2023-2024 era. (Which is why as some comments note, Copilot is actually way up there in the numbers. Note that this was from the era of spicy autocomplete and long before coding agents exploded on the scene.)
2. AI adoption at work is actually very low: even though 50%+ of Americans currently self-report (major caveat) using AI at least weekly, they use it for only 6% of work hours. (You can play with the charts here to see this [0]) This is what the recent Google study [1] called "broad but shallow use."
Notably, the same surveys find time savings of 2% of working hours, so a whopping 30%+ productivity boost per hour of AI used. And this is across industries. Despite being self-reported, it does line up with many of the other controlled studies (see TFA and [2, 3]). Some economists suggest that even with this low level of adoption, we may already be seeing the impact on labor productivity at national-level aggregate statistics! [2, 3]
As I said in another thread, my concern is that the impact on jobs is only beginning because 6% of work hours is a very low number. However given how useful people are finding it based on self-reported, micro- and macro-level numbers, adoption is only going to up, both in breadth (more people) and depth (more tasks). I fear the impact will happen gradually, as adoption inches up... and then suddenly.
[0] https://www.genaiadoptiontracker.com/
[1] https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/technology/research/un... (discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49020335)
[2] https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2025/nov/state-gen...
[3] https://aleximas.substack.com/p/what-is-the-impact-of-ai-on-...
> Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, has predicted that AI could wipe out half of white-collar jobs and push unemployment to 20 percent.
And then he also says that a certain model is too dangerous to release.
Organizational inertia is a real thing. There are still fortune 500 companies with internal bans on AI. A lot of the answer to "how much impact has AI had" comes down to "how much have we even attempted?"
In my workplace, we're going to decline to renew some software subscriptions because a non-programmer vibe-coded their replacement in a week.
The impacts are here, they're just not evenly distributed yet.
99% of the AI product pitches I see here are for some kind of marketing tool. Its really sad
I can definitely see people losing jobs on my bubble, luckily to so far not have been affected.
Agency work is now done with even smaller teams than a decade ago, thanks to the adoption of SaaS, iPaaS, serverless as main delivery technologies.
AI empowers to do even more with even less people, however there isn't enough project demand to keep everyone busy.
Every job loss and suicide is a dollar in an AI investor’s pocket.
Employees have no incentive to meaningfully implement AI to increase productivity, and if they do so, they have no reason to share it.
If AI means job cuts and not using AI means job cuts but no one really tracks AI impact that means performative adoption of AI is safest, and real gains are to be sandbagged as innate magic hand waving.
At my work I'm one of the few who says "I made this with Claude" and the near impossibility of using AI with internal email etc for security reasons means AI use is one-shot wonder oriented (for me, in my experience).
If AI usage was incentived with actual bonuses and praise it might go over better. So far I haven't seen that. Its just implicit threats.
there seems to be a problem by 'a.i' labs conflating tasks & jobs.
'a.i' or to be more precise are really good at some tasks. but a job is a set of tasks. jobs are not created - only discovered. that's what the a.i labs miss. hence we see that 'a.i' is not having an impact on jobs.
I wrote a bit about it here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49048723
The impact on job satisfaction for those with jobs will be negative too. People will be trapped in their positions, fearing to leave or move around.
AI already can do basic stuff pretty well. Think about people doing robotic work, ugly internal tools in big corporations and other. Decent engineer managing and reviewing AI output can a lot without big cognitive load and bunch of people which were needed in the past.
Lol figure 3 shows copilot as being the highest task time savings when in my experience it is the most garbage.
One thing on the first graph that jumps out, is that ALL unemployment has gone up/down in same ratio's. Maybe the current job market is not about AI, but all the other variables in the economy that has always driven unemployment.
Maybe the scary thing, the economy itself is suffering which is causing the unemployment, not AI.
AI is only replacing low-level work. It will eventually move on to high-level work.
One missing point: careers that require communication, especially person-to-person, won't be replaced by AI. Why? Because people don't like to speak with AI when they have a hard pain point to solve. It's not about intelligence; it's about trust and relationships that AI cannot replace.
this is not happening because ai is so good it can replace workers. its because its good enough to look like it can replace workers to a non technical manager, and that gives execs an excuse to fire people (or not hire them) so they can show better margins and get a bonus. even if they know it kills the company long term.
the root of the problem is the same as most other economic problems in this world. financial capitalism is designed to reward short term profits, and shareholders create an asymmetric incentive where ceos dont really get fired for doing too many layoffs but can be fired easily for not doing enough.
"conscious parallelism" across knowledge worker industries to suppress wages and further alienate laborers from the act of production.
Related today:
The AI jobs apocalypse probably isn't coming anytime soon
I am just having a hard time with all this AI stuff. The other day I got some feedback on one of the products I own. It was a small tweak to an anchor tag to add a title and change the color for just that element. I made the change in the web inspector, showed it to the user, they said yeah that’s good. I walked over to one of my engineers and asked “can you make this change and get it in dev, I just pinged it to you”. No shit they turned around and pasted what I gave them into copilot with claude and asked the agent to do it. Well it actually didn’t do it exactly the way the customer wanted, so it actually took 2 tries with claude. Incredible.
> AI’s effects on overall employment is likely small, though a tough job market for new graduates may be partly due to AI.
This is a great opportunity.
There will be new jobs.
Prior to the weaving loom and sewing machines, a factory might be able to make like 20 t-shirts a day with 50 workers. After mass production, factories generally employ the same amount of workers, but people aren't hand-sewing things. Instead roughly 50 people are producing thousands of tshirts a day leveraging giant machines.
Most of HN recognized the "We're firing people because AI makes people efficient" as one of the stupidest sales pitches ever and the CEOs that fell for it are just poorly ran companies that outed themselves.
AI is just another cycle in technology that is genuinely useful. The companies that are going to jump the gap are those that are hiring to use this new skill. If 10 workers pre-AI yields you 10x, and post AI yields you 100x, you don't cut down to 1 worker so you can keep delivering 10x. You invest, ruthlessly train, hire, and surge forward and leave your competition in the dust.
Anecdotal: I used to beg my boss to get some help. I wanted 5 engineers and would have been upset if anyone had been hired that wasn't an engineer until I at least got 1-2. That was up until about 3 months ago.
Now, I don't want any additional engineers. Not only because I don't need them anymore, but because the prospect of having junior engineers using AI is absolutely terrifying to me. I can't eyeball their code to get a sense of how good of an engineer they are anymore, and I can't possibly review all of their code because of how much code AI can output now. So they're going to be outputting a ton of mostly high-quality code that could be making horrible mistakes that are much harder for me to catch now.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
I don't feel like reading an article that will probably be out of date in 6 months, but from what I've seen, if agents keep improving at this rate, 80% of SWEs are going to be looking for new careers in 5 years.
By now I feel I can write these articles:
- benefits of AI murky to slightly positive
- hiring impact limited except for junior level
The problem is that these two statements each have massive implications, so instead of treating these findings as point in time snapshots they are the whole ballgame and should be explored in depth.
A challenge with this kind of study is that coding agents (Claude Code, OpenAI Codex) only started working really well in late November, which for most people meant early January due to the December break.
General agents (OpenClaw, Anthropic Copilot, ChatGPT "Work") started working even later than that.
This category of software may have a much more meaningful impact on work than the mostly-chat systems we were using from 2022-2025.
Studies that mainly focus on 2022 to end of 2025 might be missing out on a material uptick in capabilities.