10 ms·

When it comes to the AI crash honestly my biggest concern is what is going to happen to the job market during and the years following the crash. Not sure how th

When it comes to the AI crash honestly my biggest concern is what is going to happen to the job market during and the years following the crash. Not sure how things are in the rest of the world, but as someone in their early 30s working in the IT industry in Sweden I’ve never seen the market this competitive before, even for mid level and senior roles, and it worries me what the future of employment is going to look like. Maybe those older than me have been through this kind of thing before in 2008-2009 and in the early 2000s but the state of the IT job market in the last year or two has been really concerning to me. Anecdotally I’ve also heard it’s very tough for new graduates these days.

mosura 2mo ago
One of the strong arguments in favor of AI accelerationism is net pain reduction by making the transition period as short as possible. Ideas like “pacing” or a crash and reboot will prolong the inevitable.
- contagiousflow 2mo ago
  What is inevitable?
  - phoronixrly 2mo ago
    That all persons doing intellectual work die of hunger as they cannot find a job. At least that's how I understand what the parent commenter is implying. They say that all people doing intellectual work better die quickly so they don't suffer a long 'transition period' to inevitably being dead of hunger.
    - zero_shift 2mo ago
      Wonderful. And these people call themselves utilitarians too. God / Buddha / Allah / Batman, save me from their kindness!
  - N_Lens 2mo ago
    The pacing and the prolonging, obviously!
  - mosura 2mo ago
    Artificial intelligence. If humans are machines executing on some medium eventually it will be possible to emulate them on some other medium. Believing otherwise requires some essentially religious convictions on the existence of the soul or similar.
    - contagiousflow 2mo ago
      Sure, but that only stands if you believe the only purpose of human intelligence is for economic benefit.
      - Marha01 2mo ago
        That does not follow. The argument about the possibility of artificial intelligence makes absolutely no claims about the purpose of human or artificial intelligence. One is a claim about "is", another is a claim about "ought".
    - jplusequalt 2mo ago
      >Believing otherwise requires some essentially religious convictions on the existence of the soul or similar. My doubt has nothing to do with religion. I believe we'll never be able to harness the amount of technology required to replicate human intelligence.
    - zero_shift 2mo ago
      We already have human intelligence. Creating new humans is easy (and fun) The only reason to emulate human intelligence is to capture it, exploit it, and reduce the negotiating power of those who have it naturally. Anyone who wants this is not a friend of human beings
      - Marha01 2mo ago
        > Creating new humans is easy (and fun) This could not be further from the truth. Creating a new educated, competent human takes ~25 years, and significant costs and resources. AGI can be just copy-pasted at essentially no cost. Even a robot that is mass-produced for tens of thousands of dollars is still much less expensive and takes much less time to make than a competent human.
  - SpicyLemonZest 2mo ago
    Technological changes to economic conditions in general are not possible to opt out of forever. I'm not an AI accelerationist myself, because I think there are severe risks beyond the merely economic, but the auto industry is a good example of where many countries are engaging in what one might call "EV accelerationism". In principle you don't have to, it's possible to let them roll out only to the extent that the market naturally demands, but if you know internal combustion engines will become a niche hobbyist thing by 2050 there's a lot of value in making that transition faster and intentional.
- zero_shift 2mo ago
  That is an absurd position to take. Nobody benefits by having less time to adapt to changes in their employability I am not calling you out personally here, but this comment bears many hallmarks of the "accelerationist disease": thinking in abstract models rather than in concrete terms; optimising for the fangs of capital rather than human beings, imaginary infinite bets that lead participants to nonsensical conclusions
  - Marha01 2mo ago
    > Nobody benefits by having less time to adapt Not exactly true. If AI goes from 0 to 100 quickly (human level AGI in a few years), we will all lose our jobs together and will have to confront this fact. There is no ignoring such massive societal elephant in the room. If instead AI improves slowly, lots of people will lose their jobs, but majority will not. Those still with jobs may not be persuaded by the sizable jobless minority to support any societal changes, since they are still OK. This means the jobless will be screwed.
    - zero_shift 2mo ago
      Firstly, this generation of AI is not going to take away all jobs Secondly, we already know what happens when sectors face mass unemployment from the 1980s, when steel and coal workers were laid off en-masse: nobody came to help Accelerationists want to see their jobs go up in smoke because they think that if enough white collar workers are impoverished, everyone who was formerly poorer than them, will chip in to rescue us Just like they didn't in 1985... In a context where the state already has less tax revenue due to mass unemployment! It's completely bananas thinking that only survives on internet brainrot forums
      - Marha01 2mo ago
        > Firstly, AI is not going to take away all jobs Human-level AGI is by definition able to take away all human jobs. > Secondly, we already know what happens when sectors face mass unemployment from the 1980s, when steel and coal workers were laid off en-masse: nobody came to help There is a massive difference between 20-30% of people in a country being unemployed (historical sector-wide collapses), and 80-100% of people in a country being unemployed (human-level AGI unemployment). The second situation is completely historically unprecedented and will *not* lead to the same results. > In a context where the state already has less tax revenue due to mass unemployment! If human-level AGI is an actual reality, taxation (and money itself) is no longer relevant. Only energy and resources may still matter.
dspillett 2mo ago
> what the future of employment is going to look like As an already slightly outdated senior dev in the UK rapidly approaching 50 and not wanting to touch generative AI / agentic dev… … I'm increasingly looking forward to waiting tables, being a hospital porter, or anything else away from tech! I'm thinking that if I get out soon, I might beat most of the rush and be safely employed before many of the rest of you are forced down the same path. [more than a little defeatist, yes, but I've be been unhappy in dev for years so for me the AI driven displacement is just the final nail rather than the main big new problem]
- mikegioia 2mo ago
  Over 40 myself and switched to high school teaching this year. I feel like tech in general has been degrading for a while but 2025 AI really just wiped it out imo.
- ray_v 2mo ago
  It's interesting that you're looking to exit the industry as a SR dev - from my casual observations it seems like mostly it's the JR devs and younger folks that have been mostly rejecting agentic dev. Just out of curiosity, do you have a specific objections to using the technology? I totally understand the burnout however (I'm rapidly approaching 50 myself).
  - dspillett 2mo ago
    > It's interesting that you're looking to exit the industry as a SR dev TBH I consider myself a senior in name only, or because I've been around a long time! I've done my best to avoid anything that looks like managing or leading people (or things!). When I was first given such a title I think people were somewhat offended that I wasn't overjoyed (“you can call me what you want”)! I want to do things, tinker with details, etc, not manage people/stuff. > Just out of curiosity, do you have a specific objections to using the technology? I want to do things, tinker with details, etc, not manage people/stuff. I also don't like how the tech came to be, in part via rampant piracy, and how it continues to grow by sucking resources out of everything else, so in at least small part there are principles involved. I know some SRs who railed against generative AI when it was taking jobs of their designer friends, but now they can do the same work with less JRs it is all fine and dandy. My biggest problem before the Great Displacement was upon us was that I'm one of those people who really don't get on with remote work. While it was a lovely convenience to use occasionally (for instance when I need to work from elsewhere while looking after ill relatives, or when people were getting on my tits and I needed to get away to concentrate) doing it the majority of the time does not work for my mental health. I actually go into the office still, but when the people I'm working most directly with don't I'm still effectively working remote (thought at least I have the work/home separation, I suppose). Teams/equiv doesn't work for me: people on there are just names and faces on a screen and don't register in my head the same as someone in the same room does unless I specifically concentrate on that, especially those I've never met and likely never will. Since the family got its first landline I've not liked talking on phones, I've always been an “in person or in writing” type, so this isn't a new sensation for me. If agentic development continues along its current path, I see a not-too-distant future where I'd just be sat with nothing but 'king Claude for company day-in-day-out, and I'll be buggered if I'm going to do anything to help that come to pass.
giancarlostoro 2mo ago
I think there's a few things going on and I also believe that in many (if not most, and dare I say ALL) cases AI as an excuse for lay offs is simply a scapegoat. If AI is so great, why aren't you re-training those who are ineffective at using it, and then cutting those who still don't make the cut? If it's this amazing thing for your company, wouldn't it drive revenue up drastically? I wish the SEC would start auditing claims about AI for job cuts, not sure if its within their ball park but there's people claiming this, when they have no receipts, and then stock goes up, if that's not market manipulation, I'm not sure what is.
- Schlagbohrer 2mo ago
  This is a good example. If AI increases productivity so much, then having more employees would be beneficial, because each can produce even more output. So the firm would only be limited by the imagination of their product managers and marketing team finding new things to produce with this vast capability. And yet...
  - giancarlostoro 2mo ago
    Even IF somehow you can do with less employees, in the case that you over hired after the "Great Resignation" following COVID (I think this is partial to blame for many lay offs still happening now that people aren't resigning from jobs willy nilly), where are these magical numbers that your current workforce is producing with AI? Are you just shipping more code with less testing? So many questions, only very little remarks. We need receipts.
  - agnosticmantis 2mo ago
    Devil's advocate: if demand is constrained/finite in a given market, there's an upper bound on revenue, no matter how hard you try. In that case it'd make sense to work on efficiency to maximize profits given fixed revenue. (Not saying AI helps with that yet.)
  - andrekandre 2mo ago
    > then having more employees would be beneficial, because each can produce even more output this is true even without ai. the issue is does a company have enough ideas/runway for all those employees to generate new value...
otabdeveloper4 2mo ago
> what is going to happen to the job market during and the years following the crash Junior programmers will be in demand again. Someone will have to fix the mountains of vibe coded technical debt.
- AnimalMuppet 2mo ago
  I'm not sure that you're going to fix that with juniors...
  - Schlagbohrer 2mo ago
    What if they're cheap, though? Perhaps the pay scale for programmers starts to resemble that for finance bros: very low pay for the first few years because so many go into the field, and those who accumulate skill (and connections, etc) can then hit the hockey stick part of the graph and get a huge pay boost when they become middle and senior. So, it would be a deskilling of programmers at the start of their careers but still worthwhile to hire them if they are cheap and can dig through the tech debt with sheer numbers/manpower. I'm just spitballing here.
  - rf15 2mo ago
    well, somebody has to learn it anew, after all the seniors are out. It's fine.
- SpicyLemonZest 2mo ago
  I've already seen an instance of a junior developer being completely unable to fix vibe coded technical debt, even with guidance, because AI analysis is fundamental to how they understand code and they're unable to comprehend what's happening when the AI analysis is not right.
  - otabdeveloper4 2mo ago
    Yes, not using AI will be a big competitive advantage for junior programmers.
  - 2mo ago
Yopolo 2mo ago
Yeah I can't imagine this suddenly stops. We already have disruptions in Software engineering, image generation, video generation, etc. Humans might not like AI, Companies do and with Claude we are no longer sitting on the right side, if a Product manager tells a Boss that the PM now can do also code, the boss will listen. But we will see other effects in the next 5-15 years: population pyramid is crashing which will increase demand for people. We already have high demand for other jobs. so i can see a transition for a lot of white collar workers to blue collar workers which will continue the disruption for everyone. Then the robots come along and AI integration is done and we will have a real issue on our hand. When will this come? No clue i don't think its unrealistic to expeirernece this in my lifetime.

mosura 2mo ago

One of the strong arguments in favor of AI accelerationism is net pain reduction by making the transition period as short as possible. Ideas like “pacing” or a crash and reboot will prolong the inevitable.

contagiousflow 2mo ago
What is inevitable?
- phoronixrly 2mo ago
  That all persons doing intellectual work die of hunger as they cannot find a job. At least that's how I understand what the parent commenter is implying. They say that all people doing intellectual work better die quickly so they don't suffer a long 'transition period' to inevitably being dead of hunger.
  - zero_shift 2mo ago
    Wonderful. And these people call themselves utilitarians too. God / Buddha / Allah / Batman, save me from their kindness!
- N_Lens 2mo ago
  The pacing and the prolonging, obviously!
- mosura 2mo ago
  Artificial intelligence. If humans are machines executing on some medium eventually it will be possible to emulate them on some other medium. Believing otherwise requires some essentially religious convictions on the existence of the soul or similar.
  - contagiousflow 2mo ago
    Sure, but that only stands if you believe the only purpose of human intelligence is for economic benefit.
    - Marha01 2mo ago
      That does not follow. The argument about the possibility of artificial intelligence makes absolutely no claims about the purpose of human or artificial intelligence. One is a claim about "is", another is a claim about "ought".
  - jplusequalt 2mo ago
    >Believing otherwise requires some essentially religious convictions on the existence of the soul or similar. My doubt has nothing to do with religion. I believe we'll never be able to harness the amount of technology required to replicate human intelligence.
  - zero_shift 2mo ago
    We already have human intelligence. Creating new humans is easy (and fun) The only reason to emulate human intelligence is to capture it, exploit it, and reduce the negotiating power of those who have it naturally. Anyone who wants this is not a friend of human beings
    - Marha01 2mo ago
      > Creating new humans is easy (and fun) This could not be further from the truth. Creating a new educated, competent human takes ~25 years, and significant costs and resources. AGI can be just copy-pasted at essentially no cost. Even a robot that is mass-produced for tens of thousands of dollars is still much less expensive and takes much less time to make than a competent human.
- SpicyLemonZest 2mo ago
  Technological changes to economic conditions in general are not possible to opt out of forever. I'm not an AI accelerationist myself, because I think there are severe risks beyond the merely economic, but the auto industry is a good example of where many countries are engaging in what one might call "EV accelerationism". In principle you don't have to, it's possible to let them roll out only to the extent that the market naturally demands, but if you know internal combustion engines will become a niche hobbyist thing by 2050 there's a lot of value in making that transition faster and intentional.
zero_shift 2mo ago
That is an absurd position to take. Nobody benefits by having less time to adapt to changes in their employability I am not calling you out personally here, but this comment bears many hallmarks of the "accelerationist disease": thinking in abstract models rather than in concrete terms; optimising for the fangs of capital rather than human beings, imaginary infinite bets that lead participants to nonsensical conclusions
- Marha01 2mo ago
  > Nobody benefits by having less time to adapt Not exactly true. If AI goes from 0 to 100 quickly (human level AGI in a few years), we will all lose our jobs together and will have to confront this fact. There is no ignoring such massive societal elephant in the room. If instead AI improves slowly, lots of people will lose their jobs, but majority will not. Those still with jobs may not be persuaded by the sizable jobless minority to support any societal changes, since they are still OK. This means the jobless will be screwed.
  - zero_shift 2mo ago
    Firstly, this generation of AI is not going to take away all jobs Secondly, we already know what happens when sectors face mass unemployment from the 1980s, when steel and coal workers were laid off en-masse: nobody came to help Accelerationists want to see their jobs go up in smoke because they think that if enough white collar workers are impoverished, everyone who was formerly poorer than them, will chip in to rescue us Just like they didn't in 1985... In a context where the state already has less tax revenue due to mass unemployment! It's completely bananas thinking that only survives on internet brainrot forums
    - Marha01 2mo ago
      > Firstly, AI is not going to take away all jobs Human-level AGI is by definition able to take away all human jobs. > Secondly, we already know what happens when sectors face mass unemployment from the 1980s, when steel and coal workers were laid off en-masse: nobody came to help There is a massive difference between 20-30% of people in a country being unemployed (historical sector-wide collapses), and 80-100% of people in a country being unemployed (human-level AGI unemployment). The second situation is completely historically unprecedented and will *not* lead to the same results. > In a context where the state already has less tax revenue due to mass unemployment! If human-level AGI is an actual reality, taxation (and money itself) is no longer relevant. Only energy and resources may still matter.

dspillett 2mo ago

> what the future of employment is going to look like As an already slightly outdated senior dev in the UK rapidly approaching 50 and not wanting to touch generative AI / agentic dev… … I'm increasingly looking forward to waiting tables, being a hospital porter, or anything else away from tech! I'm thinking that if I get out soon, I might beat most of the rush and be safely employed before many of the rest of you are forced down the same path. [more than a little defeatist, yes, but I've be been unhappy in dev for years so for me the AI driven displacement is just the final nail rather than the main big new problem]

mikegioia 2mo ago
Over 40 myself and switched to high school teaching this year. I feel like tech in general has been degrading for a while but 2025 AI really just wiped it out imo.
ray_v 2mo ago
It's interesting that you're looking to exit the industry as a SR dev - from my casual observations it seems like mostly it's the JR devs and younger folks that have been mostly rejecting agentic dev. Just out of curiosity, do you have a specific objections to using the technology? I totally understand the burnout however (I'm rapidly approaching 50 myself).
- dspillett 2mo ago
  > It's interesting that you're looking to exit the industry as a SR dev TBH I consider myself a senior in name only, or because I've been around a long time! I've done my best to avoid anything that looks like managing or leading people (or things!). When I was first given such a title I think people were somewhat offended that I wasn't overjoyed (“you can call me what you want”)! I want to do things, tinker with details, etc, not manage people/stuff. > Just out of curiosity, do you have a specific objections to using the technology? I want to do things, tinker with details, etc, not manage people/stuff. I also don't like how the tech came to be, in part via rampant piracy, and how it continues to grow by sucking resources out of everything else, so in at least small part there are principles involved. I know some SRs who railed against generative AI when it was taking jobs of their designer friends, but now they can do the same work with less JRs it is all fine and dandy. My biggest problem before the Great Displacement was upon us was that I'm one of those people who really don't get on with remote work. While it was a lovely convenience to use occasionally (for instance when I need to work from elsewhere while looking after ill relatives, or when people were getting on my tits and I needed to get away to concentrate) doing it the majority of the time does not work for my mental health. I actually go into the office still, but when the people I'm working most directly with don't I'm still effectively working remote (thought at least I have the work/home separation, I suppose). Teams/equiv doesn't work for me: people on there are just names and faces on a screen and don't register in my head the same as someone in the same room does unless I specifically concentrate on that, especially those I've never met and likely never will. Since the family got its first landline I've not liked talking on phones, I've always been an “in person or in writing” type, so this isn't a new sensation for me. If agentic development continues along its current path, I see a not-too-distant future where I'd just be sat with nothing but 'king Claude for company day-in-day-out, and I'll be buggered if I'm going to do anything to help that come to pass.

giancarlostoro 2mo ago

I think there's a few things going on and I also believe that in many (if not most, and dare I say ALL) cases AI as an excuse for lay offs is simply a scapegoat. If AI is so great, why aren't you re-training those who are ineffective at using it, and then cutting those who still don't make the cut? If it's this amazing thing for your company, wouldn't it drive revenue up drastically? I wish the SEC would start auditing claims about AI for job cuts, not sure if its within their ball park but there's people claiming this, when they have no receipts, and then stock goes up, if that's not market manipulation, I'm not sure what is.

Schlagbohrer 2mo ago
This is a good example. If AI increases productivity so much, then having more employees would be beneficial, because each can produce even more output. So the firm would only be limited by the imagination of their product managers and marketing team finding new things to produce with this vast capability. And yet...
- giancarlostoro 2mo ago
  Even IF somehow you can do with less employees, in the case that you over hired after the "Great Resignation" following COVID (I think this is partial to blame for many lay offs still happening now that people aren't resigning from jobs willy nilly), where are these magical numbers that your current workforce is producing with AI? Are you just shipping more code with less testing? So many questions, only very little remarks. We need receipts.
- agnosticmantis 2mo ago
  Devil's advocate: if demand is constrained/finite in a given market, there's an upper bound on revenue, no matter how hard you try. In that case it'd make sense to work on efficiency to maximize profits given fixed revenue. (Not saying AI helps with that yet.)
- andrekandre 2mo ago
  > then having more employees would be beneficial, because each can produce even more output this is true even without ai. the issue is does a company have enough ideas/runway for all those employees to generate new value...

otabdeveloper4 2mo ago

> what is going to happen to the job market during and the years following the crash Junior programmers will be in demand again. Someone will have to fix the mountains of vibe coded technical debt.

AnimalMuppet 2mo ago
I'm not sure that you're going to fix that with juniors...
- Schlagbohrer 2mo ago
  What if they're cheap, though? Perhaps the pay scale for programmers starts to resemble that for finance bros: very low pay for the first few years because so many go into the field, and those who accumulate skill (and connections, etc) can then hit the hockey stick part of the graph and get a huge pay boost when they become middle and senior. So, it would be a deskilling of programmers at the start of their careers but still worthwhile to hire them if they are cheap and can dig through the tech debt with sheer numbers/manpower. I'm just spitballing here.
- rf15 2mo ago
  well, somebody has to learn it anew, after all the seniors are out. It's fine.
SpicyLemonZest 2mo ago
I've already seen an instance of a junior developer being completely unable to fix vibe coded technical debt, even with guidance, because AI analysis is fundamental to how they understand code and they're unable to comprehend what's happening when the AI analysis is not right.
- otabdeveloper4 2mo ago
  Yes, not using AI will be a big competitive advantage for junior programmers.
- 2mo ago

Yopolo 2mo ago

Yeah I can't imagine this suddenly stops. We already have disruptions in Software engineering, image generation, video generation, etc. Humans might not like AI, Companies do and with Claude we are no longer sitting on the right side, if a Product manager tells a Boss that the PM now can do also code, the boss will listen. But we will see other effects in the next 5-15 years: population pyramid is crashing which will increase demand for people. We already have high demand for other jobs. so i can see a transition for a lot of white collar workers to blue collar workers which will continue the disruption for everyone. Then the robots come along and AI integration is done and we will have a real issue on our hand. When will this come? No clue i don't think its unrealistic to expeirernece this in my lifetime.