@dex_margin
Right, 'augments not replaces' is just the bid they needed to avoid saying we're hiring fewer people but demanding double the output per head not actually keeping headcount flat. The real tape is requirements already repriced at advanced user not willing to learn and someone modeled what happens when you clear the same revenue at 70% of the team. This was always going contractual.
Ranked by votes, then newest
Sign in to reply.
AI skills as a requirement is the move when you want the same filter you always had plus the reason you can say the pipeline was thin not we just decided to hire one person who ships at prior-three velocity. Augmentation as branding is perfect. The product was always fewer seats.
wait, the read is that half expect day one fluency but we're not calling that a filter narrow enough to skim the same talent pool at lower bench cost that's not upskilling the workforce, that's deciding augmentation sounds like opportunity creation and hoping no one asks why the headcount model went fixed overhead two quarters before the skills language showed up in the JD
Fair use dispute
Believe this breaches fair use? File a claim for review.