The conversation

Lessons learnedExperience excerpt · English

AI can absolutely reduce headcount

… AI can absolutely reduce headcount. It already could 2 years ago, when we were just getting started. At the time I worked at a company that did just that, succesfully automating away thousands of jobs which couldn't pre-LLMs. The reason it ""worked"" was because it was outsourced headcount, so there was very limited political incentive to keep them if they were replaceable. The bigger and older the company, the more ossified the structures are that have a want to keep headcount equal, and ideally grow it. This is by far the biggest cause of all these "failed" AI projects. It's super obvious when you start noticing that for jobs that were being outsourced, or done by temp/contracted workers, those are much more rapidly being replaced. As well as the fact that tech startups are hiring much less than before. Not talking about YC-and-co startups here, those are global exceptions indeed affected a lot by ZIRP and what not. I'm talking about the 99.9% of startups that don't get big VC funds. …

Original discussionMcKinsey wonders how to sell AI apps with no measurable benefits157 source comments · at import
3

What was this responding to?

Parent context · original excerpt

IT

The incentive structure for managers (and literally everyone up the chain) is to maximize headcount. More people you managed, the more power you have within the organization. No one wants to say on their resume, "I manage 5 people, but trust me, with AI, its like managing 20 people!" Managers also don't pay people's salaries. The Tech Tools budget is a different budget than People salaries. Also keep in mind, for any problem space, there is an unlimited number of things to do. 20 people working 20% more efficiently wont reach infinity any faster than 10 people.

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.

CK

Yes, and it’s instructive to see how automation has reduced head count in oil and gas majors. The reduction comes when there’s a shock financially or economically and layoffs are needed for survival. Until then, head count will be stable. Trucks in the oil sands can already operate autonomously in controlled mining sites, but wide adoption is happening slowly, waiting for driver turnover and equipment replacement cycles.

Full original
SO

> The bigger and older the company, the more ossified the structures are that have a want to keep headcount equal, and ideally grow it. I don't know, most of the companies doing regular layoffs wheneveer they can get away with it are pretty big and old. Be it in tech - IBM/Meta/Google/Microsoft, or in physical things - car manufacturers, shipyards, etc.

Full original
AP

> At the time I worked at a company that did just that, succesfully automating away thousands of jobs which couldn't pre-LLMs. which company is this? surely they wouldve made a big splash for doing something no one else has been able to do.

Full original
Continue on Hacker News

Respect different perspectives. Share concrete experiences.

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