upvote
> Because I think "1 employee can do the work of 3 now" still hasn't actually been demonstrated

1 employee doing the work of 3 is I think is a stretch

but 1 employee doing the work of 1.1 employees from a year ago I think is almost certainly true - at least, me and everyone i work with is _at least_ 10% more productive, and using AI extensively

reply
Right I think orgs are unclear how to wield this yet though

In my 20 year career I’ve rarely been on a team with more than 3-5 people on a team or within region on a team.

So at that scale it’s not really reducing a team member on a given team still. But you get more productive which is notoriously hard to measure in SWE, so yeah. It’s possible that translates to iterating faster or closing tickets further down the backlog which is useful but not per-se staff reducing.

Maybe in mag7 where you have massive engineering orgs the 10% can impact a given team more..

reply
I wonder what proportion[1] of knowledge workers believe they have at least one colleague who the business would be better off replacing with software

and how many of them are totally wrong, or right about it!

[1] and how it might be changing with new generations of models

reply
I think the bigger issue is employees who can largely just not be replaced.

For all the hype about the 1X vs 10X distinction the real stumbling block is how many 0Xes there are out there and how frequently they tend to make it through hiring.

reply
Pretty sure it has for coding
reply
Personally, no, haven't seen it in professional settings. Colleagues using AI heavily did not show any superhuman development speed, but definitely increased review burden compared to writing code by hand.
reply