I dont fully buy the "AI is killing junior jobs" narrative. Juniors are more useful now. AI deployment is now highly skill-differentiated. Ineffective deployment is ~not useful while effective deployment is. On a relative basis, juniors are more useful now bc they use AI better.
Seniors are on average more useful with AI than juniors, esp at the tail end. But at the median (i.e. most non technical white collar jobs), juniors are IMO more likely to natively use AI. So on a relative basis, net increase of usefulness for juniors is higher than seniors.
I dont fully buy the "AI is killing junior jobs" narrative. Juniors are more useful now. AI deployment is now highly skill-differentiated. Ineffective deployment is ~not useful while effective deployment is. On a relative basis, juniors are more useful now bc they use AI better.
I think a lot of this is just the usual macroeconomic factors except slapping AI on to make it sound like the company is doing better and like, future-forward or whatever. At the frontier of AI, average hires are quite young (for now).
Seniors are on average more useful with AI than juniors, esp at the tail end. But at the median (i.e. most non technical white collar jobs), juniors are IMO more likely to natively use AI. So on a relative basis, net increase of usefulness for juniors is higher than seniors.
@menhguin https://www.ft.com/content/2205e2d0-50dc-4e80-9bf7-78d0272276c0?syn-25a6b1a6=1
I dont fully buy the "AI is killing junior jobs" narrative. Juniors are more useful now. AI deployment is now highly skill-differentiated. Ineffective deployment is ~not useful while effective deployment is. On a relative basis, juniors are more useful now bc they use AI better.