AI Is Wrecking Young Americans' Job Prospects

Nothing new. Circa the great recession, most of my fellow grads at a top-5 engineering school could not get jobs. Out of my friends, most of whom had internships, co-ops, and top ~10% of class, it mostly took us 6 months or so to secure a job as all our co-ops/internships cut off hiring before graduation. Many people did stuff like drive forklifts or work at walmart for awhile. Another friend of mine with a dual engineering major summa-cum-laude worked sorting screws in a screw factory, a position normally occupied by people in that town with serious mental handicaps.

> focus it on more industry-geared education

I was told that a student can now get a CS degree without courses in OS, Compilers, Programming Languages, theory of computing etc. The argument being that a vast majority of jobs do not ever use the above. That may have caused a flood of grads with a shaky knowledge of the basics. The idea that software engineering is not really a science but more of a trade for which anyone could be trained without a formal degree has some shades of truth.

But in my experience, technology changes so fast that someone with a better grasp of the basics can evolve with the tech since they understand the fundamentals better. LLMs really separate those who can critique and correct its output, and those that blindly follow it, and the former will continue to have jobs.

> dumb-dumbed the grade-inflation (data backs this up)

Source for CS graduates?

> that number

Anyone referring to unemployment data in the singular has not dug into the numbers.

Odd Lots has done a lot of interviews with Fed members these past few days as they were in Jackson Hole and they all said that "now the data looks right" as they were talking to businesses everyone was saying they weren't hiring but the job numbers had remained high. One even said he'd expect to see even worse revisions in the coming months given the anecdotal data he's seeing in the wild.

So yeah, i'd say most of this AI stuff is bullshit, if it was really this good Sam Altman wouldn't be talking about building social networks.

The future is gloomy because the American economy has largely been in a state of "jobless recovery" since thr great recession. Stock prices are up thanks to corporate tax cuts, ZIRP, AI hype etc, but discretionary income is either stagnant in many sectors or are being chipped away from every angle: rent, healthcare, transport, childcare or leisure.

> Is it possible to stay better than AI? Maybe for some people. Not for the average person.

I know we're talking broadly across all industries but I can only speak to what I know and am able to observe directly.

My opinion of the average software developer with a few years experience is not very high. Yet now that we have non-coders shipping features written with LLMs, and we're starting to observe the fallout from that, I'm getting closer to saying than an entry level coder is far better than an LLM (depending on how we evaluate "better").

There are also a lot of hidden costs associated with LLMs. For example, I'm spending a lot more time reviewing PRs than I used to. And we're taking a lot more time doing rework than we were before.

We can't yet say that LLMs have caused an increase in regressions, since we've been racing towards a major new version release, and so people are rushing in general and that skews the numbers. Over time, however, we'll have data on rate of bugs introduced before the widespread company adoption of LLMs vs after, controlled for crunch times as well.

If the average software developer only spends an average of 20% of their time actually writing code, then even if an LLM can offer an optimistic 50% productivity increase, then we're only optimizing for 10% best case scenario.

I think there is a lot of marketing-hype-driven ideology around "AI" right now that is leading a lot of people to buy into some of the overstated claims. This ideology may have companies genuinely slowing down their hiring of entry-levels at the moment, since some people are saying that an LLM is like having an incompetent intern. The business thinks "If you need to babysit a junior and you need to babysit an LLM, then why pay for the junior?" And we still need better data to determine if, on average, what a company pays for a junior is truly more expensive than delegating the work to an LLM + taking on the maintenance and review overhead. We don't have the answers yet. My personal bias has me thinking that on average a junior will provide higher returns although not necessarily immediately. The benefit of a junior is that they learn from mistakes and can adapt more readily to specific business requirements.

This is not to say that LLMs aren't valuable. I think the trade-off for entry-levels is that I would have killed to have something like Cursor when I was a a pre-teen teaching myself to code in the 90s. When you want to build something complicated and don't even know where to start, and LLM can get you some scaffolding and show you a basic strategy that you can build on. Then you go fix bugs and poke around and break stuff.. it's a great learning tool. So I expect that, over time, the talent of entry-levels will probably increase. In the short term, we need to get through this AI bubble and stabilize. Companies will learn where LLMs save costs and where they can still benefit from less-experienced coders. It will just take a bit of time.