3 ms·

You're neglecting capital costs and the dominant market position GitHub has. Capital being spent on GitHub to develop it could be used elsewhere or banked as p

You're neglecting capital costs and the dominant market position GitHub has. Capital being spent on GitHub to develop it could be used elsewhere or banked as profit if you had a smaller team. GitHub isn't in a position that it's market dominance will be threatened by a slower pace of development. You're also talking in absolutes, GitHub says there's a 40% productivity boost from using ai. Assuming (simplistically) that this results in a 40% required headcount reduction for the same output, you can then see: 0% headcount reduction, 40% improvement in velocity 40% headcount reduction, 0% improvement in velocity Scale these two factors mentally to see that it's not all or nothing, maybe they've gone 20/20 and so some people still get to keep their jobs.

Quarrelsome 4y ago
> GitHub says there's a 40% productivity boost from using ai. That is their own marketing bumpfh and idk if any org should dog-food sales copy as strategy. I am saying that cutting development teams by 40% on the wonky maths that generative AI makes developers 40% more "developery" won't be best-practice. I don't think its a leap before you look job and I don't think the toolsets and practices are mature enough to bank that 40%, at least, not yet. Therefore I think the slashing of the engineering team in India is not related to AI but rather budget or political or smth else. I guess at the executive level its about whether you think you can increase sales with more R&D or whether you have entirely saturated your market or organisational capacity. Still, I would argue that mindlessly cost cutting is more the domain of the post-IPO, than that of the entrepreneur.