Study: AI wiping out entry-level jobs for young workers

The genius. Where are you going to get your senior engineers from in 5 years if you don't have juniors to begin with?

Oh, I'm sure the plan is to not need senior engineers by that time, and just replace them with AI, too
- And if that doesn't work, panic and blame everybody else.
5 years? Line must go up this quarter, to hell with anything else
Let's be honest. Who will remember who did what 5 years from now ? If it's not major military conflict or flop of the year nobody gives a fuck.
- When you're trying to hire senior engineers and there are 5 years worth of senior engineers missing, somebody will remember.
  Anti Commercial-AI license

That was the point.

When we say capitalism eats itself. This is the kind of thing we're referring to. Terminal end stage profit seeking. To the detriment of literally, literally everyone. Job seekers, the currently employed who will have their wages even more heavily suppressed, even career employees who will be pushed out so they can be replaced. Even ultimately the businesses engaging in this suicidal nonsense themselves.

How does capitalism continue its fantasy of endless growth on a finite planet if nobody has money to spend on products and services? Short answer is that it doesn't. It will limp along on financialization and debt. But that correction will ineviably come.

I'm going to enjoy watching the AI bubble burst.

It will limp along on financialization and debt.
I'm far from an expert or even very knowledgeable about economics (never taken macro or micro economics), but hasn't that been the case for decades?
- Yes. Since the late 90s. But we're reaching thr end now. It's taken this long for the chickens of Reaganomics to come home to roost. The fruits of "fiduciary responsibility" to bear out.
Me too. I am even going to enjoy these corporations get fucked over it. I wish there was a way to create a parallel economy that don't rely on massive corporations as being the driving force. One that prioritizes humanity over economic gain.
Maybe not, but a guy can dream.

I don't get it, is ai bad in every possible way and it never works and always lies, singlehandedly destroying the planet while nobody uses it.... and jobs are being lost.

This just goes to show how much corporations hate employees and hate paying them. They would rather sell shit than pay employees, who are actually skilled at what do.
I find AI to be extremely knowledgeable about everything, except anything I am knowledgeable about. Then it's like 80% wrong. Maybe 50% wrong. But it's significant.
So, c-suite see it churning out some basic code - not realising that code is 80% wrong - and think they don't need as many junior devs. Hell, might as well get rid of some mid level devs as well, cause AI will make the other mid level devs more efficient.
And when there aren't as many jobs for junior devs, there aren't as many people eligible for mid devs or senior devs.
I know it seems like the whole "Immigrants are lazy and leech off benefits. Immigrants are taking all our jobs" kinda thing.
But actually it's that LLMs are very good at predicting what the next word might be, not should be.
So it seems correct to people that don't actually know. While people that do know can see its wrong (but maybe not in all the ways it's wrong), and have to spend as much time fixing it as they would have if they had just fucking written it themselves in the first place.
Besides which, by the time an AI prompt is suitably created to get the LLM to generate its approximation of the solution for a problem.... Most of the work is done, the programmer has constrained the problem. The coding part is trivial in comparison.
- I think most people don't understand what programers do. They don't know why you need all these people to build an app. They think it's just coding.
Even free tier LLM's have been great as a coding assistant for me. I can see LLM's already being useful in a lot of roles, but without really tightly controlled ai agents (intermediary programs that require quite a bit of human involvement) I don't see how they can actually replace many entry level roles effectively. There is a lot of hype around these language models that seem to have created a bit of a bubble that will likely pop.
Having said that, like the dotcom bubble popping didn't stop the internet developing, ai is likely to continue past this hype/bubble period.
If a business thinks it will get a competitive advantage by using ai that business will use it, which drives competitors to have to do the same even if they don't particularly want to. You can scale this up to national competition between the US and China. In this way it is a race to the bottom.
If you're really concerned about work and stability, a job that involve staring at a computer all day where the product of the work is something that exists in the computer might be a job that is susceptible to being made redundant by ai agents eventually. Think about stuff that happens in the real world - skilled trades etc are the safest bet wrt ai. Read around and figure out what is best for you.
- Programming isn't about syntax or language.
  LLMs can't do problem solving.
  Once a problem has been solved, the syntax and language is easy.
  But reasoning about the problem is the hard part.
  Like the classic case of "how many 'r's in 'strawberry'", LLMs would state 2 occurrences.
  Just check googles AI Mode.
  The strawberry problem was found and reported on, and has been specifically solved.
  Promoted how many 'r's in the word 'strawberry':
  There are three 'r's in the word 'strawberry'. The letters are: S-T-R-A-W-B-E-R-R-Y.
  Prompted how many 'c's in the word 'occurrence':
  The word "occurrence" has two occurrences of the letter 'c'.
  So, the specific case has been solved. But not the problem.
  In fact, I could slightly alter my prompt and get either 2 or 3 as the answer.
- That's actually well said. I use it a lot and really love it, but I found this is a forbidden opinion on fediverse 😆 Usually I get at least insulted immediately if not banned for saying that. I was in a company that tried to develop some ai apps, but kind of failed, but I learned a lot about how to use ai, what can be done and what is not sensible to do with ai.
  I was thinking a lot when this whole thing began to find a job away from tech, but slowly realized this ai is not replacing humans any time soon so I remained in tech, but for good or bad, not in AI .

As a person who has been managing software development teams for 30+ years, I have an observation.
Invariably, some employees are "average". Not super geniuses, not workaholics, but people who (say) have been doing a good job with customer support. Generally they can code simple things and know the OS versions we support as a power user -- but not as well as a sysadmin.

I do find that if I tell them to use ChatGPT to help debug issues, they do almost as well as if a sysadmin or more experienced programmer had picked up the ticket. It gets better troubleshooting, they maybe fix an actual root cause bug in our product code.

Any time somebody I work with uses AI for debugging they get wrapped around the axle and I have to disabuse them of the nonsense direction they've been led to get to what used to be the starting point.
- maybe our averages are different