Hacker News Reader

Comment by thrawa8387336 | Hacker News Reader

This is a second hand anecdote but someone commented here or on X, that basically he was on a cruise and overheard two heads of HR of 2 big Co's talking to each other about shenanigans.

Would not be the craziest considering that AI has to make a ROI. Even if it's not up there yet to do so organically. If you annihilate the entry labor market, then after some time, you have no choice but to use AI because there is no one remaining with the skills. AI is lower than entry level -> No one is hiring new grads -> There is no new talent being developed -> use AI for everything!

View on HN

> This is a second hand anecdote but someone commented here or on X, that basically he was on a cruise and overheard two heads of HR of 2 big Co's talking to each other about shenanigans.

I have no idea what this means.

It's describing the setting for a conspiracy theory. Multiple (in this case 2) people (in this case powerful ones) getting together and deciding that a certain outcome would be mutually beneficial.

And the second paragraph details the conspiracy is to work together to remove a certain type of employee in large numbers, so that AI tools have to be used in order to make up for that loss.

Pretty much, though I would not say they go together. 2nd paragraph is just a separate conjecture.

Personally, don't need that much evidence; are we old enough to remember the hiring gentleman's agreement in big tech?

Let's also not forget one of the main functions of HR, as an industry, these days: friction. You think salaries (and inflation) wouldn't go up if hiring managers had more freedom?

You say this as if humans do not collude all the time. The pejorative idea of a "Conspiracy theory" is such a great modern tool for those who want to collude to hide their collusion in plain view.

Somehow it has become a heuristic that if caste in, the collusion is instantly dismissed as fiction. Even better that the person who thinks collusion is happening must have a lower IQ than those who don't. How convenient for those who are colluding.

An of the horizon for AI explosive growth was 10 years down the road, then what those execs report to the board/C*Os after their department failed to perform without half the employees?

Makes zero sense.

You completely misunderstand corporate incentives.

I do see that angle, and my impression is this push comes from the top top. The execs and middle are just following, milking it as long as it lasts.

cf. Matt Levine's thoughts on how Blackrock optimizes whole industries beyond the company level.

It still makes no sense. Why would a CEO or the Board gamble the company on an outcome they have no input on?

Broad pressure because everybody else MIGHT be using AI and this (example) company stock MIGHT go down.

> Why would a CEO or the Board gamble the company on an outcome they have no input on?

have you seen the behavior of CEOs?

the market is doing it, and there is no way for a CEO, CIO, CTO, CISO, et al, to not do AI in 2025. the gains to stock price from the hype alone could be worthwhile, and even if not "everyone else was doing it"

Until you run out of people using AI in the first place lol

Reply on news.ycombinator.com