8 ms·
IT Unemployment Rises to 5.7% as AI Hits Tech Jobs
- wyattshacker 2y agoCurrent US UR is just above 4%. 1.7% Delta. Stay tuned to see if the gap widens in this particular sector at a faster rate than others.
- tryptophan 2y agoH1B has surely nothing to do with this.
- ivewonyoung 2y agoKinda dupe https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42995524 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42995524
- zusammen 2y agoThe irony is that AI, as a replacement for an even average programmer, doesn’t work. You can use it helpfully if you are already a programmer, but if you’re not, you won’t know when it’s generating insecure or even non-working code. And yet it’s causing massive disruption. The bosses have such a hardon for layoffs that they’re doing this on the slim chance that it might work for them. Having to hire programmers back in a panic is, as they see it, future someone else’s problem.
- kcplate 2y ago> The irony is that AI, as a replacement for an even average programmer, doesn’t work. Yet.
- brink 2y agoAI needs to fundamentally change before this happens. We're not even close to capturing actual reasoning in AI models.
- elif 2y agoDisagree. I've been coding with o1 and o3-mini-high If you give it a prompt which resembles a requirements document produced by a competent manager, you will get what you request and it will run first time.
- bigtex 2y agoAnd how many C suite executives will be doing this?
- bluefirebrand 2y agoI think you overestimate how many people could produce this document to the degree you're talking about
- elif 2y agoDoesn't matter how many people can produce the requirements document when an AI can produce it. No manager and coder pair can iterate on an idea 5 times per minute, even if the first attempt needs correction, the timescale disparity makes AI agents appealing for nearly all noncritical coding tasks.
- bluefirebrand 2y agoNow you're talking about someone who can describe what they want in enough so that an AI can generate a strictly defined requirements document with enough detail that another AI (or the same AI) can generate working code? It's just AI all the way down, and each step still needs to be validated because AI is not reliable
- hobs 2y agoThe only change this quarter is the use of AI to justify this behavior :)
- kmonsen 2y agoBeing helpful to 2/3 might be enough to lay off 1/3
- bigtex 2y ago100% C suite executives are not going to sit in front of a chat agent to fix a bug in an application or solve a problem.
- throwaway290 2y agoManagers would do what they always do. Give somebody requirements. Just in this case it's "something"
- cableshaft 2y agoManagers give very loosey-goosey, easy to misinterpret requirements. Which the AI will just make a stab at without digging in and asking clarifying questions or examining all aspects of the codebase to spot what challenges there are with doing it that way with the specific custom business logic needs needed for the rest of the application, and then get it very wrong and not anywhere close to what was intended (although possibly exactly what was actually asked for). Meanwhile even a slightly seasoned developer will know to ask for clarifying questions on various aspects of it, or point out challenges with the existing codebase to match the requested requirements (sometimes after taking a stab at it themselves and realizing it doesn't work). There are ways to prompt the AI to produce better results, with very specific and detailed requirements that include tricky aspects of the technology (that developers are aware of and can provide when they write prompts), but the typical requirements that come down from management ain't anywhere near that. Not saying AI won't ever get to that point, but we're not there yet.
- simonw 2y agoThat's absolutely true, but it doesn't mean AI won't lead to job losses just in terms of increased productivity: if your existing programmers can get more done you may find yourself reducing (or at least freezing) your team size. I continue to hope that the net result of programmers getting more productive is an increase in demand for our skills, as employers realize they can get a whole lot more value for their investment. It might take a while for that to shake out though - we need companies to realize they can take on more ambitious projects now.
- tokioyoyo 2y agoI'm oversimplifying it horrendously with dumb math, but this is how I think of it: Let's say you're trying to build a product/feature. You have general timelines for the launch. About 5 years ago, it would take a team of 10 to deliver it. Now, let's assume there were productivity gains, and you can deliver it with a team of 8. This would not necessarily be a problem if for 20% of the workforce cut, you would also start getting investments and create 20% more companies/features. The big uncertainty is, will this ever happen, or it'll end up with 10% increment in such activities, so you still have that extra person hanging around.
- arrowsmith 2y agoHow do we know that the rise in unemployment is being driven by AI specifically, and not by wider economic circumstances? The article's evidence for the AI claim is just "some guy you've never heard of says so".
- pizlonator 2y agoExactly. I think there are many other factors influencing tech jobs.
- jarsin 2y agoAll financial articles use what I call the "as"s reason. It works like this. Find whatever is hot that day, week or month then put it after the "as". Stock market down as Trump holds another signing. Stock market up big as Musk slashes government spending.
- rcktmrtn 2y agoI also started noticing this headline pattern ("something A as something B") all over the place a while ago and now automatically break it down as: * Something A (probably) happened * Something B (probably) happened * The author/publisher are slimy weasels and I'm not going to give their stupid article any more time
- rchaud 2y agoYou would need to wait for several quarters' worth of labor market data and a thorough empirical analysis to see whether the hypothesis held up. 2-3 years would need to pass just to collect enough data.
- myth_drannon 2y agoAccording to the article, the overall unemployment rate is 4%. So something is happening with IT jobs, not the economy. I call it bullshit that it's the AI, it's the outsourcing/remote jobs
- Spooky23 2y ago
- 65 2y agoI think the actual story here is big corporations are laying off people to invest more in AI, rather than "replacing" programmers with AI. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2025/02/02/google-offers-buyout-program-amid-ai-shift-cost-cuts-and-monopoly-accusations/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2025/02/02/google-off... https://www.forbes.com/sites/esatdedezade/2025/02/10/meta-job-cuts-begin-today-as-tech-giants-increase-focus-on-ai/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/esatdedezade/2025/02/10/meta-jo...
- windexh8er 2y agoAnother lackluster article with a number of assertions with AI in the headline to drive clicks. From the article... > "Jobs are being eliminated within the IT function which are routine and mundane, such as reporting, clerical administration,” Janulaitis said. “As they start looking at AI, they’re also looking at reducing the number of programmers, systems designers, hoping that AI is going to be able to provide them some value and have a good rate of return.” Hoping... - I think this is where "leaders" are showcasing their ignorance. They're being sold a bill of goods that, truly, doesn't exist at the levels they think it does. Now, on the flip side, the first part of the paragraph above seems plausible. However, these mundane tasks have been able to have been automated for a long time. It's just that it wasn't en vogue. Reducing the roles outlined will truly lead to shittier outcomes for these companies and I hope the ones that are diving head first end up paying the price as it showcases, not their efficiencies but their ignorance. AI has a few great use cases. Replacing IT folks who are skilled and can think on their feet are not a prime target for AI.
- giancarlostoro 2y agoAI is a tool not a worker, you still need people to wield the hammer. Especially because hallucinations could seriously cost you.
- bluefirebrand 2y agoLike any new productivity tool, the people in charge of money are hoping that it makes people so much more productive that they can have one person do the job of several This still does replace workers in the end. It doesn't really matter if you lose your job to an autonomous AI or you lose your job because someone else is using an AI to do your job and theirs I don't personally believe AI makes people this much more productive, but clearly people in charge of headcount are thinking it is
- giancarlostoro 2y agoWhich is really funny because a lot of the times businesses don't adopt new programming frameworks until the rest of the industry has tried and tested it, but it seems people are treating AI like if its a worker, when its closer to Adderall for developers if used right.
- almosthere 2y agoEveryone has this wrong. They are replacing US jobs with jobs in Poland. I experienced this first hand.
- whatever1 2y agoBut that is not new. Tech always had overseas sweatshops. India, Latin America, Eastern Europe come to mind.
- Amezarak 2y agoIt seems probable that the trend has accelerated.
- ActionHank 2y agoI think that businesses are emboldened now because they believe AI will bridge the gap that couldn't be bridge in the last great offshoring.
- torlok 2y agoWhat gap? People all around the world can speak English, and write code. The US didn't need AI to push all manufacturing to China. You're getting outsourced. This is normally where unions step in, but not in this country.
- deadeye 2y agoIt's a cycle. The US is expensive, so offshore. Offshore projects are more expensive because they never work, so come back to the US. I've lived it twice now. We’re in the middle of my third cycle.
- almosthere 2y agoExpect this cycle to be perm. The infrastructure, education and language barriers are completely gone now. This is my third cycle too, and its different this time. In 2006 the Indians would randomly cut out, couldn't be on video (phone only) and had major language barriers, and they would join in their evening. Now in 2024 you're on their schedule. Believe me, those people are not staying up late for your 3pm call. Wake up at 5am every day to keep your job, you have 3-4 hours to work with them.
- sergiotapia 2y agojobs are leaving the US and going overseas. even h1b engineers here are treated like dogs because what are they going to do? complain and get sent home? no. they'll work weekends, and 12 hours days, sure. and before you say this is false I've seen it firsthand many times. personally seen it with my eyes.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- exabrial 2y agoIt has nothing to do with AI, and everything to do with an oversaturated market and over-employment. AI is just an excuse.
- RomanPushkin 2y agoI thought "we gonna have uuuge success, many-many jobs, we gonna need many-many people, a lot of people"
- Gothmog69 2y agoyou think the president can turn the economy around in 1 month?
- giantg2 2y agoAI isn't hitting tech jobs, management is.
- whamlastxmas 2y agoI would more specifically label it as capitalism and its general brutality is hitting it
- giantg2 2y agoUnemployment and under-employment are not unique to capitalism.
- whamlastxmas 2y agoNo but it’s clearly capitalist pressures in this instance
- fitsumbelay 2y agoNo diss to the OP, but is there any point to sharing posts like this? 1) the headline is bait for a story content that's at best inconclusive, 2) of the two sources for this story, one analyst's point that IT spending on AI outpaced new hires seems to do most of the post's heavy lifting, 3) the second source -- an Indeed economist -- makes almost the opposite point that after increased spending on AI at the expense of new hires, spending on the is stabilizing 4) And this entire story appears to be based on *one month's worth of job reporting* I understand why a WSJ reported is professionally required to spin something out of a nothingburger and convert attention into ad impressions and "provoke debate" or whatever, but for those of us uninterested in WSJ or Rupert Murdoch's success this feels as unhelpful as that post from a week or so ago about yet another (inconclusive A.F.) study on the effects of marijuanablahblahblah ...
- stalfosknight 2y agoHaving tried to get AI to do some of my coding work for me, I’m not convinced AI is the real culprit. I think this has much more to do with the end of ZIRP.
- jll29 2y agoI doubt AI has much to do with it. But it may be given as "excuse" by CXOs to explain why the cuts have been made. To add AI functionality, you will first need more developers, and a different kind (those that can train/evaluate/improve/deploy/integrate AI models) before potential savings can be kicking in. Some payback that may lead to layoffs could happen, but with a delay. It would be very silly to lay off a good developer rather than re-assign them, because the cost of hiring them is enormous, and you may not get the same quality again; in economic terminology, software engineers are "non-fungible resources".
- belter 2y agohttps://archive.is/JNzdD https://archive.is/JNzdD
- yadaeno 2y agoAI = aggressively offshoring jobs as fast as humanly possible.
- enrio2000 2y agoAI accelerated the process, of IT headcount doing down, multiplied by outsourcing etc
- pipeline_peak 2y agoSeems more like people are leaving out of fear more than getting laid off over this.
- fitsumbelay 2y agoI realize that I'm beating a dead horse here but .. how can a story about two widely relevant topics -- the way AI is accelerating automation and the way that impacts employment all over the world -- be considered credible let worth sharing when it's based on someone just two (maybe three) sources -- from one employment agency when there are thousands in the US alone, and one analyst with just about zero footprint in the news sources I use or even come across?
- treebeard901 2y agoThe silver lining is at least some jobs will have to exist to solve the problems caused by hallucinations