Related Posts
Hi Guys,
Attaching a few urgent opening in @Trianz. Please message me in case you want to be referred.
Here are the detailed job descriptions:
Node Js Architect - pastebin.com/S4699677
Java Microservices Technical Lead - pastebin.com/BPHE82Kv
Ansible Architect - pastebin.com/jvSf7n5u
.Net Technical Lead - pastebin.com/t58qqQjb
Message me and I will share more details with you. Thank you.
Kasowitz Benson - what is your opinion of them?
We're looking for a Senior AD who wants to produce lots of TV with crazy talented writers, a great REMOTE work-life balance and very few layers. You'll have access to C level daily. Most briefs are one, sometimes two teams and you'll produce what gets bought. Sound good?
If so please send your CV to Jsimotics@digobrands.com.
Additional Posts in Tech
New to Fishbowl?
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Probably both. 😆
Three times as much work
Oh absolutely both
The business is augmenting internal staff with AI. This means that there is budget and $$$ being spent so they will expect productivity gains.
Any lack of expected output will be fired for under-performance.
Any improvements to productivity/efficiency should translate to more output.
That said, there is an indirect impact to hiring due to shifting costs to pay for compute for those AI assistance. You will hire less people if you have less money to throw around for hiring.
The actual productivity increase is very vague, if it wasn't and a clear increase that should keep hiring high.
Many companies are still in a "figure out stage" with AI, so it translates to slower hiring growth due to unclear financials.
The question of whether companies will hire less or expect more assumes productivity is a simple math equation.
In reality, it is a logistics problem. Even if an AI tool instantly creates a raw output, three hidden walls break the "double productivity" promise:
1. The Verification Jam
AI can generate 2,000 lines of code or a complex legal contract in 30 seconds for pennies. However, finding a subtle logic flaw or a hallucinated fact requires a human expert to review it line by line. As task criticality rises, the time spent auditing and debugging AI work can actually exceed the time it takes a skilled human to build it from scratch. We aren't doubling production speed; we are just shifting the bottleneck to human review.
2. The Token Cost Trap
Simple prompts are cheap. However, as business tasks grow in complexity, we shift from basic chatbots to autonomous AI agents that loop, reason, and self-correct. This causes token consumption to explode, sometimes by 1,000x. When tasks require deep reasoning, the computing and token costs can skyrocket so fast that human labour becomes the more cost-effective choice - see recent issues in major corporations - Microsoft for one.
3. The Supply Chain of Attention
For infinite AI efficiency to yield true business value, a company needs an endless pipeline of tasks and infinite human attention. If we automate the "creation" phase but human review capacity remains fixed, we just create a massive pile-up downstream. A business can only move as fast as its slowest human sign-off.
—-
That said… in short, yes, they would, and will, and they’ll learn, if even, the hard way.