The conversation

Business & incomeExperience excerpt · English

For example, I founded a SaaS company late last year which has been growing very quickly

… For example, I founded a SaaS company late last year which has been growing very quickly. We are track to pass $1M ARR before the company's first birthday. We are fully bootstrapped, 100% founder owned. There are 2 of us. And we feel confident we could keep up this pace of growth for quite a while without hiring or taking capital. (Of course, there's an argument that we could accelerate our growth rate with more cash/human resources) Early in my career, at different companies, we often solved capacity problems by hiring. But my cofounder and I have been able to turn to AI to help with this, and we keep finding double digit percentage productivity improvements without investing much upfront time. I don't think this would have been remotely possible when I started my career, or even just a few years ago when AI hadn't really started to take off. So my theory as to why it doesn't appear to be "painfully obvious": you've never heard of most of the businesses getting the most value out of this technology, because they're all too small. On average, the companies we know about are large. …

Original discussionThe ‘white-collar bloodbath’ is all part of the AI hype machine1,240 source comments · at import
3

What was this responding to?

Parent context · original excerpt

TD

Maybe someone can help me wrap my head around this in a different way, because here's how I see it. If these tools are really making people so productive, shouldn't it be painfully obvious in companies' output? For example, if these AI coding tools were an amazing productivity boost in the end, we'd expect to see software companies shipping features and fixes faster than ever before. There would be a huge burst in innovative products and improvements to existing products. And we'd expect that to be in a way that would be obvious to customers and users, not just in the form of some blog post or earnings call. For cost center work, this would lead to layoffs right away, sure. But companies that make and sell software should be capitalizing on this, and only laying people off when they get to the point of "we just don't know what to do with all this extra productivity, we're all out of idea…

Full original

Community replies 0

No community replies yet. Add your perspective.

Replies from the source 3

Direct replies available in this import. Original-language excerpts.

MI

Curious, if you don’t mind mentioning what AIs you’re using (besides the obvious Claude, etc) and what for to augment your reach?

Full original
AN

This is exactly how it’s going down Companies that needed to hire 10 people to grow, only need to hire 9 now In less than 5 years that’s going to be 7 or 6 people I’m doing more with 5 engineers than I was able to do with 15 just 10 years ago Part of that is libraries etc have matured too but we’ve reached the point from a developer perspective that you don’t need to build new technologies, you just need to put what exists together in new ways All the parts exist for any technology to be built, it’s about composition and distribution at this point

Full original
AI

Do existing teams (and ossified office politics) benefit from n-times faster devs? I witnessed (implied) Gantt charts so shaped that shrinking dev activities won't shrink the chart.

Full original
Continue on Hacker News

Respect different perspectives. Share concrete experiences.

Sign in to post, reply, repost, and quote.