3 ms·

Maybe. I am likely not a typical HNer, but my company actually has use of AI our 2026 goals. I am not guessing. I know majority of people in this company have t

Maybe. I am likely not a typical HNer, but my company actually has use of AI our 2026 goals. I am not guessing. I know majority of people in this company have those goals baked in. Now, can I suspect other like companies do the same? No. But even if they don't, it does not matter. Because the companies that don't allow AI, have people who use it anyway..

deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
hombre_fatal 9mo ago
The writing is on the wall for AI. It is coming fast and it is transformative. That your company is still trying to ramp up AI adoption and processes for 2026 supports my point. But we've been blaming AI for a couple years now, yet I suspect it's still too early in the adoption curve to have a meaningful impact on hiring compared to more boring explanations.
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 9mo ago
  I hear what you are saying. In a very practical sense, I have no real way to measure either of those factors and the company I work for is international so that does not allow for an easy extrapolation. I guess what it really means is: we will find out:P
- conartist6 9mo ago
  Really? I see H1B as the tiniest drop in the bucket compared to AI, at least in software. It's not that AI is filling 1 human role with 1 AI, it's that everyone who has a job knows that they need to keep it because the market is insanely cutthroat right now. Everyone has an AI-polished resume, and employers no longer see the value in having talented employees. Even if they did have talented employees they don't trust them enough to know how to do the work. If your employer says "I need you to start using AI" they may as well be saying "I don't trust you to know what's worth is worth your time." I see even a lot of people who have jobs as acting in a way that's consistent with on the verge of being fired, which I think is most of the real "value" of AI so far.
- esseph 9mo ago
  Even if AI wasn't being used for daily tasks by general employees, it's being used by HR and staff sourcing firms to sort through applications, so it already has had a large (negative) impact on hiring. Maybe we should do an "Ask HN" for those in HR or adjacent roles to poll for experiences there.
  - hunterpayne 9mo ago
    "it's being used by HR and staff sourcing firms to sort through applications" I think you are correct, but is anyone happy about the current situation? I suspect it will change and that change very likely will intentionally not involve AI. I suspect it will be an economic solution, not a technological one.
evnp 9mo ago
Same here, basically word for word.
tayo42 9mo ago
What industry and roles?
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 9mo ago
  Finance, but tech adjacent. I am not super comfortable going into more detail.
zdragnar 9mo ago
FOMO. https://www.axios.com/2025/08/21/ai-wall-street-big-tech https://www.axios.com/2025/08/21/ai-wall-street-big-tech Have we forgotten this? It'll find its niche, but it isn't yet a truly transformative one.
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 9mo ago
  << it isn't yet a << yet That is a lot pressure to put on a conjunction. It is up there along with 'it will never be'. In all seriousness ( and some disclosure ), I like this tech so I am mildly biased in my stance. That said, I almost fully disagree with yours. As much as I dislike Nadella, his last blog entry is not that far off. Using LLMs for stuff like email summaries is.. kinda silly at best. The right use cases may have not emerged yet, but, in a very real sense, it already has been transformative..
  - hunterpayne 9mo ago
    "it already has been transformative.." Yea, at being a search interface. But what else? Not that it can't be, but the failure rate for AI is absurd right now. What happens if it collapses and all its used for is answering questions on your phone and maybe better search of your emails? That seems to be a real and probably likely outcome. What then? Ironically, I think it will improve the economy because there are a lot of decisions that are on hold until we know what LLMs will be used for. Probably isn't going to be good for SEs either way.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 9mo ago
      << but the failure rate for AI is absurd right now. I keep a personal log of specific failures for simple CYA reasons. I do get some, but I can't honestly say it does not seem high to me. A lot likely depends on what is defined as a failure ( to me it typically is a clearly wrong result ). But those clearly wrong results do not seem to cross 10% of output.. so about the same as average human.

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

hombre_fatal 9mo ago

The writing is on the wall for AI. It is coming fast and it is transformative. That your company is still trying to ramp up AI adoption and processes for 2026 supports my point. But we've been blaming AI for a couple years now, yet I suspect it's still too early in the adoption curve to have a meaningful impact on hiring compared to more boring explanations.

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 9mo ago
I hear what you are saying. In a very practical sense, I have no real way to measure either of those factors and the company I work for is international so that does not allow for an easy extrapolation. I guess what it really means is: we will find out:P
conartist6 9mo ago
Really? I see H1B as the tiniest drop in the bucket compared to AI, at least in software. It's not that AI is filling 1 human role with 1 AI, it's that everyone who has a job knows that they need to keep it because the market is insanely cutthroat right now. Everyone has an AI-polished resume, and employers no longer see the value in having talented employees. Even if they did have talented employees they don't trust them enough to know how to do the work. If your employer says "I need you to start using AI" they may as well be saying "I don't trust you to know what's worth is worth your time." I see even a lot of people who have jobs as acting in a way that's consistent with on the verge of being fired, which I think is most of the real "value" of AI so far.
esseph 9mo ago
Even if AI wasn't being used for daily tasks by general employees, it's being used by HR and staff sourcing firms to sort through applications, so it already has had a large (negative) impact on hiring. Maybe we should do an "Ask HN" for those in HR or adjacent roles to poll for experiences there.
- hunterpayne 9mo ago
  "it's being used by HR and staff sourcing firms to sort through applications" I think you are correct, but is anyone happy about the current situation? I suspect it will change and that change very likely will intentionally not involve AI. I suspect it will be an economic solution, not a technological one.

evnp 9mo ago

Same here, basically word for word.

tayo42 9mo ago

What industry and roles?

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 9mo ago
Finance, but tech adjacent. I am not super comfortable going into more detail.

zdragnar 9mo ago

FOMO. https://www.axios.com/2025/08/21/ai-wall-street-big-tech https://www.axios.com/2025/08/21/ai-wall-street-big-tech Have we forgotten this? It'll find its niche, but it isn't yet a truly transformative one.

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 9mo ago
<< it isn't yet a << yet That is a lot pressure to put on a conjunction. It is up there along with 'it will never be'. In all seriousness ( and some disclosure ), I like this tech so I am mildly biased in my stance. That said, I almost fully disagree with yours. As much as I dislike Nadella, his last blog entry is not that far off. Using LLMs for stuff like email summaries is.. kinda silly at best. The right use cases may have not emerged yet, but, in a very real sense, it already has been transformative..
- hunterpayne 9mo ago
  "it already has been transformative.." Yea, at being a search interface. But what else? Not that it can't be, but the failure rate for AI is absurd right now. What happens if it collapses and all its used for is answering questions on your phone and maybe better search of your emails? That seems to be a real and probably likely outcome. What then? Ironically, I think it will improve the economy because there are a lot of decisions that are on hold until we know what LLMs will be used for. Probably isn't going to be good for SEs either way.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 9mo ago
    << but the failure rate for AI is absurd right now. I keep a personal log of specific failures for simple CYA reasons. I do get some, but I can't honestly say it does not seem high to me. A lot likely depends on what is defined as a failure ( to me it typically is a clearly wrong result ). But those clearly wrong results do not seem to cross 10% of output.. so about the same as average human.