Intro

The AI Paradox → “AI will reduce the need for engineers”.

This is what I am hearing regularly and it’s quite funny, because my view is totally different. I’ve responded to AI reducing the need for engineers in these 2 articles:

Will AI replace mid-level engineers in 2025? Gregor Ojstersek · Jan 15 Read full story

Why 51% of Engineering Leaders Believe AI Is Impacting the Industry Negatively Gregor Ojstersek · Jun 22 Read full story

On the contrary, I believe that the smartest companies will increase their investment in engineering.

I’ll explain all the details in this article, so make sure to keep on reading!

This is an article for paid subscribers, and here is the full index:

- Fewer people, similar productivity or more people and larger productivity?
- Companies that will move faster + be more productive will be successful
- This is a good example of why TTM is so important
- I am expecting similar situations in other companies as well
🔒 Why should companies focus on hiring engineers in particular?
🔒 It’s easier to teach business and product sense than good engineering fundamentals
🔒 Bonus: There’s a reason why a lot of successful founders/CEOs have been engineers in the past
🔒 Last words

Let’s go through 2 different approaches companies take at the current time.

Fewer people, similar productivity or more people and larger productivity?

This is something I have already mentioned in the article Future Proof Your Career as an Engineer in Gen AI World, which is based on my recent talk:

Some companies go the first route and some companies go for the second route.

1st route → Fewer people, similar productivity.
2nd route → More people, more productivity.

A lot of companies that are selling AI products are automatically incentivised to go for the first route, because it’s aligned to what they are selling → more productivity, with fewer people. It’s their value proposition that they are offering.

And in my opinion, a lot of other companies that are not building the “cutting-edge” AI products are falling for that narrative. And this could make them less competitive in the future.

You can find an example in this article, where in order to hire a new person → people need to prove that they can’t do that particular function with AI.

Now, let me share why I believe the smartest companies will increase their investment in hiring more people.

Companies that will move faster + be more productive will be successful

Time to market (TTM) is a very important metric in the age of AI and I strongly believe that the best companies in a specific industry are going to be the ones that are going to move the fastest, make adjustments based on the market needs and provide the best experience for the users.

This was true before the age of AI and now it’s even more important as things are progressing faster than ever.

So, knowing this, why would you actually restrict yourself with less productivity and less talent?

It’s a huge competitive advantage to be more productive. And I believe being less productive (that you can be) is actually a huge liability, which would result in an overall decrease in market share percentage long-term, in my opinion.

A good example: The top AI companies these days. They are all competing with each other, who is going to have “the best AI”. Let me share a specific example next.

This is a good example of why TTM is so important

We can see this especially in Meta’s example, where they offer big total compensation to poach engineers from other companies.

And the reason, in my opinion, is that they see the popularity of ChatGPT just continuously growing and it’s becoming a threat to their advertising business.

I posted this meme last week:

Imagine OpenAI deciding to put out an advertising option within their product, ChatGPT. If they did that, there would be a lot of interested people who would buy that instead of Meta’s ads. At least to test it out, but who knows what would happen after.

Meta would lose a lot of their revenue because of that, so my assumption is they want to make their product Meta AI at least close to what OpenAI is doing. That is worth a lot more to them than offering total compensation close to $100M to poach engineers.

I think the downside would be SO much bigger and could potentially harm Meta’s long-term trajectory if they don’t do that. Of course, this is my opinion and how I see things, so don’t take solely my word for it.

The funny thing here is that Meta has been very vocal about AI replacing engineers and now they are offering a huge amount of compensation to hire more engineers.

Ironic, isn’t it?

I am expecting similar situations in other companies as well

As things are moving really fast in the age of AI, it’s going to be more and more important for companies to be ahead of others and increasingly focus on innovating and providing better experiences than competitors.

And in order to innovate and continuously provide better products and services → you need productivity.

But Gregor, you can just use AI to be more productive?

Well, everyone can use AI, so it’s a level playing field for everyone. And yes, if your company knows how to use AI better than the other company, you can be more productive, but is that really what you want to bet on for the future?

In my opinion, the biggest advantage for companies is the quality and overall quantity of talent you have in your organization. People who can innovate and continuously improve the overall business.

With innovation, you can ultimately “use AI” better, which is a win-win situation. And that’s where engineers play a significant role.

Why should companies focus on hiring engineers in particular?...