4 ms·

We're already seeing large software companies figure out that they don't need 5,000 developers. They probably only need 1,000 or maybe even fewer. However, the

• paxys 8mo ago
  Why will we need 1000 companies tomorrow to do the same thing that 100 companies are doing today? If they are really so efficient because of AI then won't 10 companies be able to solve the same problems?
  • gloxkiqcza 8mo ago
    There’s always more problems to be solved. Some of them just weren’t financially feasible before.
  • aurareturn 8mo ago
    Because that car repair company with 3 local stores previously couldn't justify building custom software to make their business more efficient and aligned with what they need. The cost was too high. Now they might be able to. Plenty of businesses need very custom software but couldn't realistically build it before.
    • cityofdelusion 8mo ago
      I see no way that company would save more money from hiring an experienced developer compared to paying their yearly invoice on the COTS product doing the same thing today. The only way this works is with a very wage suppressing effect.
      • aurareturn 8mo ago
        Off the shelf software could still cost thousands per year and I'm sure they don't do everything the shops need them to do.
    • jimbokun 8mo ago
      Car repair companies won’t see a meaningful improvement to their bottom line with more custom software. Will it increase the number of cars per employee per day they can repair?
      • trollbridge 8mo ago
        I do bespoke work like this, but mostly to replace software that’s starting to cost mid 5 figure amounts per year for a SaaS setup and the support phone line has been replaced by an LLM chat bot.
  • RHSeeger 8mo ago
    What makes you think they'll be doing the same thing?
  • awesome_dude 8mo ago
    This is one of the key "inefficiencies" of the private sector - there might be one winner at the end of the day providing the product that fills the market niche, but there was always multiple competitors giving it a go in the mean time. A recent example, Mitchell Hashimoto was pointing out that he wasn't "first to market" with his product(s), he was (at least) SEVENTH
    • roncesvalles 8mo ago
      Almost tautologically it's not "inefficient" to do so, because free market economics has decided that all the attempts are mathematically worth it, for a high-margin low-marginal-cost product like software.
      • awesome_dude 8mo ago
        I'm a little lost as to why seven teams duplicating effort is more "efficient" in any sense of the word than one or two teams working iteratively toward the same goal. If this were seven government funded teams solving the same problem, people would lose their minds over the 'waste' But when private companies do it, we call it efficient market competition. The duplication is the same - we just frame it differently. Edit: fixed some typos caused by fat fingers on a phone keyboard
        • roncesvalles 8mo ago
          The benefit from having a 5% better product that hundreds of millions of people will use is worth the duplicated effort in the beginning. The numbers just make sense. >If this were seven government funded teams solving the same problem The problem here is "government funded" - the trials are not rationalized by free-market economics. That is, a 5% better product in the end would not be worth seven competing developments initially.
          • awesome_dude 8mo ago
            > The benefit from having a 5% better product that hundreds of millions of people will use is worth the duplicated effort in the beginning. The numbers just make sense. This assumes that the duplicated effort arrives at a solution that is better than if it were done by a single team. > >If this were seven government funded teams solving the same problem > The problem here is "government funded" - the trials are not rationalized by free-market economics. That is, a 5% better product in the end would not be worth seven competing developments initially. I think you're saying that 5% is worth it when the free market does it, but 5% gain isn't when the government does it? I'm hoping you're not because that's impossible - the end result is precisely the same
  • gwd 8mo ago
    For the same reason there were more bank branches after the cost-per-branch was reduced. Right now, software is really expensive; so 1) economics tends to favor large pieces of software which solve many different kinds of problems, and 2) loads of things that should be automatable simply aren't being automated with software. With the cost of software dropping, it makes more sense to have software targeted towards specific niches. Companies will do more in-house development, more things will be automated than were being automated before. Of course nobody knows what will happen; but it's entirely possible that the demand for people capable of driving Claude Code to produce useful software will explode.
• raw_anon_1111 8mo ago
  Only because VC companies are throwing money at them. How many of them are actually profitable and long term sustainable
• small_model 8mo ago
  I think this is true in the short/medium term, hence the confusing picture of layoffs but growing number of tech roles overall. The limit maybe be just millions of companies with one tech person and a team of agents doing their bidding.
  • aurareturn 8mo ago
    Maybe software engineers will be like your personal lawyer, or plumber. Every business will have a software engineer on dial, whether it's a small grocery store or a kindergarten. Previously, software devs were just way too expensive for small businesses to employ. You can't do much with just 1 dev in the past anyway. No point in hiring one. Better go with an agency or use off the shelf software that probably doesn't fill all your needs.
• haliskerbas 8mo ago
  Do the booming companies pay the same as the ones who did layoffs? If you're laid off from Meta or other top tier paying company (the behemoths doing layoffs) you might have a tough time matching your compensation.
  • aurareturn 8mo ago
    There's likely going to be a separation between the top earners and the average. IE. If a top tier dev make $1m today, they'll make $5m in the future. If the average makes $100k today, they'll maybe make $60k. AI likely enables the best of the best to be much more productive while your average dev will see more productivity but less overall.
    • Sleaker 8mo ago
      I think this is assuming that the labor market knows how to identify the dirct value of devs. This already seems to be a problem across the board regardless of job role.
      • aurareturn 8mo ago
        I think solo founders or small software companies where top tier devs can have huge ownership will be making top dollar.
        • nubg 8mo ago
          Can you give an example of what a solo founder might now make top dollar on that he previously couldn't?
          • aurareturn 8mo ago
            I think a solo dev can make a $1b company whereas it was impossible before.
            • 8mo ago
• snarf21 8mo ago
  Don't count all those chickens before they hatch. There might be more started but do they all survive? Think back to the dot-com boom/crash for an example of where that initial gold rush didn't just magically ramp forever. There were fits and starts as the usefulness of the technology was figured out.
• lovich 8mo ago
  Ah, so that explains why job growth is at a steady pace and the software industry hasn’t been experiencing net negative job growth the past year or so. How silly of me to rely on reality when it’s so obvious that AI is benefiting us all.
  • aurareturn 8mo ago
    I think you're being sarcastic? I'm not sure. Anyways, this is the start. Companies are adjusting. You hear a lot about layoffs but unemployments. But we're in a high interest environment with disruptions left and right. Companies are trying to figure out what their strategy is going forward. I don't expect to see a boom in software developer hiring. I think it'll just be flat or small growth.
    • lovich 8mo ago
      I was being sarcastic. We are in negative growth, and the current leadership class keeps talking about all the people they can get rid of. Look at the Atlassian layoff notice yesterday for example where they lied to our faces by saying they were laying off people to invest more in AI but they totally aren’t replacing people with AI.
• hackyhacky 8mo ago
  > We're already seeing large software companies figure out that they don't need 5,000 developers. They probably only need 1,000 or maybe even fewer. Long-term, they will need none. I believe that software will be made obsolete by AI. Why use AI to build software for automating specific tasks, when you can just have the AI automate those tasks directly? Why have AI build a Microsoft Excel clone, when you can just wave your receipts at the AI and say "manage my expenses"? Enjoy your "AI-boosted productivity" while it lasts.
  • pixelatedindex 8mo ago
    > Long-term, they will need none. I believe that software will be made obsolete by AI. I think this is a bit hyperbolic. Someone still needs to review and test the code, and if the code is for embedded systems I find it unlikely. For SaaS platforms you’ll see a dramatic reduction, maybe like 80% but it’ll still have a handful of devs. Factories didn’t completely eliminate assembly line workers, you just need a far fewer number to make sure the cogs turn the way it should.
    • hackyhacky 8mo ago
      > Someone still needs to review and test the code, and if the code is for embedded systems I find it unlikely. I feel like you didn't understand my comment. I am predicting that there is no code to review. You simply ask the AI to do stuff and it does it. Today, for example, you can ask ChatGPT to play chess with you, and it will. You don't need a "chess program," all the rules are built in to the LLM. Same goes for SaaS. You don't need HR software; you just need an LLM that remembers who is working for the company. Like what a "secretary" used to be.
      • pixelatedindex 8mo ago
        > I feel like you didn't understand my comment. I am predicting that there is no code to review. You simply ask the AI to do stuff and it does it. I didn’t, and thanks for clarifying for me. This doesn’t pass the sniff test for me though - someone needs to train the models, which requires code. If AI can do everything for you, then what’s the differentiator as a business? Everything can be in chatGPT but that’s not the only business in existence. If something goes wrong, who is gonna debug it? Instead of API requests you would debug prompt requests maybe. We already hate talking to a robot for waiting on calls, automated support agents, etc. I don’t think a paying customer would accept that - they want a direct line to a person. I can buy the argument that the backend will be entirely AI and you won’t need to be managing instances of servers and databases but the front end will absolutely need to be coded. That will need some software engineering - we might get a role that is a weird blend of product + design + coding but that transformation is already happening. Honestly the biggest change I see is that the chat interface will be on equal footing with the browser. You might have some app that can connect to a bunch of chat interfaces that is good at something, and specializations are going to matter even more. It was a bit of a word vomit so thanks for coming to my TED Talk.
• ap99 8mo ago
  And the differentiator will be (even more than it is now) product vision since AI-enhanced engineering abilities will be more level.
• laughing_man 8mo ago
  The number of software companies being started is probably at least partially the result of people not being able to find a job and starting a company as a last resort.