Ah so the company that produced the most cutting edge technology needs to hire more people to stay ahead.. and that's proof LLMs aren't making most of the progr

Ah so the company that produced the most cutting edge technology needs to hire more people to stay ahead.. and that's proof LLMs aren't making most of the programmers in the trenches more productive. Let's see if an LLM can reason better than you do. (You're Alice btw) : Alice's response has a few issues: Shifts the Goalpost: Bob's point was about AI's impact on existing jobs—he's arguing that AI increases productivity, not that companies like OpenAI don't need people. Alice shifts the discussion to whether OpenAI, an AI company, is hiring people, which isn't directly relevant to Bob's claim. Strawman Argument: She implies that if AI is truly productive, OpenAI shouldn't need to hire. But OpenAI is in a high-growth phase, likely hiring to build and maintain the technology, not to replace traditional roles with AI. AI productivity doesn't mean zero hiring—it often means hiring in different areas or scaling faster. Burden of Proof Misstep: Alice demands proof from Bob while making her own claim ("baseless assertion") without providing evidence that AI is directly causing 1:1 replacements. Weak "AI Native" Point: The question about "AI native" companies might sound clever, but it doesn't address Bob's core argument about existing companies using AI to do more with fewer people. Alice's frustration is understandable, but her argument misses the mark because it's more about OpenAI's hiring practices than the broader point of productivity gains through AI.