That is true, but then why specify a generation in that sentence? Illnesses are experienced by people of every generation. Maybe she is generalizing in that she thinks only people from those generations are in entry level jobs. I just seems odd to add that into a statement that could have been exclusively about LLMs, not about getting sick. Though that said, LLMs are not “immune” to going down for some time due to unexpected external input (e.g. hackers) or internal issues (e.g. buggy code).
Maybe she is generalizing in that she thinks only people from those generations are in entry level jobs
It’s exactly this; she’s saying people entering the workforce (predominantly young people) are now competing with AI. You can’t get experience if you don’t get a job, and you can’t get a job because you don’t have experience has always been a stumbling block, but now AI can do those low-level things that companies used to be willing to let those inexperienced workers cut their teeth on.
What her narrative is interestingly completely ignoring is that not just employees need to gather experience, companies need to get experienced people to handle all that AI outfall and they will get much rarer if the above policy were to become the norm. In her scenario companies would select for rich parents instead of talent, these two things commonly to not correlate very strongly.
So companies are destroying their talent base over peanuts (entry salaries). They will have a serious disadvantage over other companies selecting for talent instead. Of course that is too long term for shareholder value people.
they would be choosing ENTITLED, elitist employees from rich families, that end up worst than one that is disadvantged. an elitis employee while had a excellent education often make pretty poorly experienced professionals.
The thing is, if that is so, the employment market will shift (because of a lack of experienced people) and become one dominated by employees again. That will lead also for short termers to the opposite situation described by her above.
For a time, there will be rising wages among skilled workers, that’s true, but as the cost of a skill set rises in price, its available marginal value decreases. If there’s no marginal value to derive profit from, employers can’t afford the time of a skilled worker, and an unskilled worker will never be able to afford to acquire those skills, meaning, the ability to do whatever it is, simply vanishes.
She’s about 2 steps from reinventing trade apprenticeships. The next step is recognizing that the employers can lower the cost of skilled labour by ensuring a pipeline of new skilled workers exists and is cheaper long term than letting those skill sets vanish and having to reinvent the wheel every time something breaks. After that coming up with a graduated system of categorizing employees by their theoretical knowledge and practical experience.
Congratulations, another tech executive has reinvented the bus… again… hooray for progress?
True. I guess her logic was just not very easy to understand (in my opinion any way), as it combined multiple topics into what should have been one point.
The paradox of needing experience to get work and work to get experience has been going on some time now. Unfortunately, now companies have an excuse not to hire for entry level positions and therefore not train people up. Although, surely there will be need for entry level positions to grind through mountains of AI output to correct its mistakes. Which is not necessarily the best training, but at least it would be something rather than just not hiring people. Though, many companies probably won’t realize there are mistakes for a while, after which it will probably have skipped past a bunch of recent graduates.
That is true, but then why specify a generation in that sentence? Illnesses are experienced by people of every generation. Maybe she is generalizing in that she thinks only people from those generations are in entry level jobs. I just seems odd to add that into a statement that could have been exclusively about LLMs, not about getting sick. Though that said, LLMs are not “immune” to going down for some time due to unexpected external input (e.g. hackers) or internal issues (e.g. buggy code).
boomer talk basically, Young people of this generation is lazy and wont work 6-7days a week, type.
I think the stereotype she’s going for is “young people are lazy and take sick days when sick” hence the generations.
It’s exactly this; she’s saying people entering the workforce (predominantly young people) are now competing with AI. You can’t get experience if you don’t get a job, and you can’t get a job because you don’t have experience has always been a stumbling block, but now AI can do those low-level things that companies used to be willing to let those inexperienced workers cut their teeth on.
What her narrative is interestingly completely ignoring is that not just employees need to gather experience, companies need to get experienced people to handle all that AI outfall and they will get much rarer if the above policy were to become the norm. In her scenario companies would select for rich parents instead of talent, these two things commonly to not correlate very strongly.
So companies are destroying their talent base over peanuts (entry salaries). They will have a serious disadvantage over other companies selecting for talent instead. Of course that is too long term for shareholder value people.
they would be choosing ENTITLED, elitist employees from rich families, that end up worst than one that is disadvantged. an elitis employee while had a excellent education often make pretty poorly experienced professionals.
Oh yes, completely agree it’s short-sighted of the companies, but that’s the way they operate these days.
The thing is, if that is so, the employment market will shift (because of a lack of experienced people) and become one dominated by employees again. That will lead also for short termers to the opposite situation described by her above.
For a time, there will be rising wages among skilled workers, that’s true, but as the cost of a skill set rises in price, its available marginal value decreases. If there’s no marginal value to derive profit from, employers can’t afford the time of a skilled worker, and an unskilled worker will never be able to afford to acquire those skills, meaning, the ability to do whatever it is, simply vanishes.
She’s about 2 steps from reinventing trade apprenticeships. The next step is recognizing that the employers can lower the cost of skilled labour by ensuring a pipeline of new skilled workers exists and is cheaper long term than letting those skill sets vanish and having to reinvent the wheel every time something breaks. After that coming up with a graduated system of categorizing employees by their theoretical knowledge and practical experience.
Congratulations, another tech executive has reinvented the bus… again… hooray for progress?
True. I guess her logic was just not very easy to understand (in my opinion any way), as it combined multiple topics into what should have been one point.
The paradox of needing experience to get work and work to get experience has been going on some time now. Unfortunately, now companies have an excuse not to hire for entry level positions and therefore not train people up. Although, surely there will be need for entry level positions to grind through mountains of AI output to correct its mistakes. Which is not necessarily the best training, but at least it would be something rather than just not hiring people. Though, many companies probably won’t realize there are mistakes for a while, after which it will probably have skipped past a bunch of recent graduates.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dianehamilton/2025/03/01/are-entry-level-jobs-going-away-the-hidden-workforce-shift/
its called the catch 22, where is the experience for jobs, if your low level job is the experience you need.