simonmesmith

In economics, deflation causes people to delay spending, expecting future prices to be lower. I find myself experiencing a similar phenomenon with technological advancement, especially with generative AI. Considering the pace of progress, anything I think to create—whether code, imagery, videos, music, etc.—seems like it will be easier and better accomplished in 6-12 months. Unless there’s a current need (e.g., earning a paycheck), the logical choice seems to be: wait for even better technology. Does anyone relate? If so, how do you navigate it?

I’ve found it interesting that ChatGPT sparked fresh concern about AI’s impact on jobs and yet many months later we have historically low unemployment in the US.

Obviously, such impact wouldn’t be instantaneous, but I’ve wondered how companies are thinking about this in terms of headcount planning.

From conversations with friends it seems that a common approach is attrition with non-replacement. Companies are using ChatGPT and similar tools to increase productivity, but don’t want to fire a lot of people due to the negative impact on morale on those that remain—and the fact, I assume, it’s not yet clear how much of a productivity gain will occur where, so they don’t even know exactly who to fire yet.

I was wondering what others on HN are seeing. How are your companies approaching this? Is attrition with non-replacement a common strategy? If so, what might that mean for the future job market and unemployment rate?