4 ms·

I'm not sure your example tracks. With an excavator, one person can outperform a 100 person digging crew. AI is the next excavator.

dghlsakjg 2y ago
Yeah, but AI is trivially cheap, unlike excavators. If a solopreneur can buy an excavator, the corporate developers will get them too.
- einarfd 2y ago
  You need to retool the corporation, the way the company is organized, and retrain the workforce for the new way building. In addition you have to pull that of, while still keep the light on, for what you already have. It will be much easier for someone starting from scratch.
  - sanderjd 2y ago
    I do think many corporations will fail for this reason. But some will successfully adapt, and others will start fresh and have no baggage. I do think it will be easier for very small organizations to compete than it was previously - which is great - but let's not fool ourselves that big companies won't maintain some competitive advantages.
NAHWheatCracker 2y ago
If 1 person can use an excavator/AI, then a 100 person crew can use 100 excavators/AIs. Capabilities have increased for everyone, not just for 1 man operations.
- 6stringmerc 2y ago
  Have you seen how big excavators are physically? There are functional limits to certain tools. I can see how software could become a hot mess if AI tools aren’t calibrated or the human element makes a mess of combining disparate parts.
  - NAHWheatCracker 2y ago
    It's a metaphor.
  - adamhartenz 2y ago
    In this scenario, it's like the excavators are pocket sized, and cheap. As cheap as the shovel. So there is no reason for the entire digging crew not to have one each
- onlypassingthru 2y ago
  In this analogy, how many ditches do you think need to be dug? Each company only has a limited number of ditches they need done. The unnecessary human diggers will be let go.
  - NAHWheatCracker 2y ago
    I didn't make the original analogy. I was just explaining part of the point. I disagree with the number 100. It is not a reasonable number with respect to current AI capabilities. If the cost of digging ditches goes down, companies will be apt to dig more ditches. I've seen many projects worth $100k-$500k but they weren't pursued because the cost in salaries was higher. I don't think companies are generally well run to let go of unnecessary people efficiently. At least one place I've worked at had, by my estimates, $100m salary of unnecessary people employed. It didn't matter, the business has revenues of $100b yearly, so it's a drop in the bucket.
ArcticFirehose 2y ago
I think they meant that the digging crew would also use excavators.
- woleium 2y ago
  but it takes months for a team of 100 to o do anything, let alone make the decision to do so. Right now there is a sort of time arbitrage opportunity for single developers
echoangle 2y ago
Yeah, but the 100 person digging crew is going to get 100 excavators.
- onlypassingthru 2y ago
  Have you ever been on a construction site? How many excavators do you think a company needs?
tyre 2y ago
Yeah. As we saw with the invention of excavators, we ran out of things to build and didn't need construction crews anymore.
wkirby 2y ago
Depends on if you think AI is more like a shovel or an excavator. The article to me implies a shovel: a tool used by one person to increase individual productivity. An excavator is not run by a single worker — it’s run by a team. If AI assisted coding is an excavator, a solo developer won’t outperform a 100 person dev team, because they won’t be able to operate the AI tooling efficiently or effectively.
guru4consulting 2y ago
In my experience, team efficiency does not improve linearly with head count. A 100-person team may be 2 or 3 times more productive than a 10-person team. Collaboration efforts (process, bureaucracy, calls, meetings, mails, chats) increase exponentially with larger teams. AI can help with coding but not much with this collaboration process, at least not yet. Now, AI can make a small team much more productive because their collaboration overhead stays the same. But AI cannot help with a 100 person team because their collective collaboration overhead cannot be solved by AI. I guess the trend will move towards smaller sized teams that can effectively use AI.

dghlsakjg 2y ago

Yeah, but AI is trivially cheap, unlike excavators. If a solopreneur can buy an excavator, the corporate developers will get them too.

einarfd 2y ago
You need to retool the corporation, the way the company is organized, and retrain the workforce for the new way building. In addition you have to pull that of, while still keep the light on, for what you already have. It will be much easier for someone starting from scratch.
- sanderjd 2y ago
  I do think many corporations will fail for this reason. But some will successfully adapt, and others will start fresh and have no baggage. I do think it will be easier for very small organizations to compete than it was previously - which is great - but let's not fool ourselves that big companies won't maintain some competitive advantages.

NAHWheatCracker 2y ago

If 1 person can use an excavator/AI, then a 100 person crew can use 100 excavators/AIs. Capabilities have increased for everyone, not just for 1 man operations.

6stringmerc 2y ago
Have you seen how big excavators are physically? There are functional limits to certain tools. I can see how software could become a hot mess if AI tools aren’t calibrated or the human element makes a mess of combining disparate parts.
- NAHWheatCracker 2y ago
  It's a metaphor.
- adamhartenz 2y ago
  In this scenario, it's like the excavators are pocket sized, and cheap. As cheap as the shovel. So there is no reason for the entire digging crew not to have one each
onlypassingthru 2y ago
In this analogy, how many ditches do you think need to be dug? Each company only has a limited number of ditches they need done. The unnecessary human diggers will be let go.
- NAHWheatCracker 2y ago
  I didn't make the original analogy. I was just explaining part of the point. I disagree with the number 100. It is not a reasonable number with respect to current AI capabilities. If the cost of digging ditches goes down, companies will be apt to dig more ditches. I've seen many projects worth $100k-$500k but they weren't pursued because the cost in salaries was higher. I don't think companies are generally well run to let go of unnecessary people efficiently. At least one place I've worked at had, by my estimates, $100m salary of unnecessary people employed. It didn't matter, the business has revenues of $100b yearly, so it's a drop in the bucket.

ArcticFirehose 2y ago

I think they meant that the digging crew would also use excavators.

woleium 2y ago
but it takes months for a team of 100 to o do anything, let alone make the decision to do so. Right now there is a sort of time arbitrage opportunity for single developers

echoangle 2y ago

Yeah, but the 100 person digging crew is going to get 100 excavators.

onlypassingthru 2y ago
Have you ever been on a construction site? How many excavators do you think a company needs?

tyre 2y ago

Yeah. As we saw with the invention of excavators, we ran out of things to build and didn't need construction crews anymore.

wkirby 2y ago

Depends on if you think AI is more like a shovel or an excavator. The article to me implies a shovel: a tool used by one person to increase individual productivity. An excavator is not run by a single worker — it’s run by a team. If AI assisted coding is an excavator, a solo developer won’t outperform a 100 person dev team, because they won’t be able to operate the AI tooling efficiently or effectively.

guru4consulting 2y ago

In my experience, team efficiency does not improve linearly with head count. A 100-person team may be 2 or 3 times more productive than a 10-person team. Collaboration efforts (process, bureaucracy, calls, meetings, mails, chats) increase exponentially with larger teams. AI can help with coding but not much with this collaboration process, at least not yet. Now, AI can make a small team much more productive because their collaboration overhead stays the same. But AI cannot help with a 100 person team because their collective collaboration overhead cannot be solved by AI. I guess the trend will move towards smaller sized teams that can effectively use AI.