Bayramovanar

We spend a lot of time debating whether AI is “smart” enough to replace us.

I think that’s the wrong target. AI doesn’t replace people. Incentives do.

Capital owners decides whether productivity gains mean:

– cutting the workforce to increase profitability

or

– keeping the workforce and scaling the business.

Throughout history, major productivity shifts also reduced working hours.

- 12-hour days became 8.

- 6-day weeks became 5 (at least in parts of the world).

Those changes weren’t automatic. They were negotiated.

If those decisions were left solely to capital owners, many of those quality-of-life improvements would likely never have happened.

I've always struggled to share my milestones because I generally tend to understate my own achievements and skills.

But 2025 was different because I managed to convert my struggles into achievements and I am proud of it.

I'm sharing this not to brag, but to show what is possible when you stay motivated.

Feel free to reach out, if you’re curious about the details. I can’t and won’t give you a financial advice, but I’m happy to share my non‑secrets(there are not secrets!) for the rest.

they even cut costs by leasing the computers...

I am really not debating whether over hiring is possible in factories.

in tech cost of hiring is lower which makes headcount a much easier speculative bet and layoffs a much easier reset when the bet fails.

I will avoid getting into a “who understands economics better” debate.

But factory workers usually require specialized machinery, tooling, and physical capacity, which makes overhiring slower, harder and more constrained. Those investments force more deliberate planning.

By contrast, engineers mostly require a laptop and company hoodie... That low marginal cost makes it far easier to hire aggressively on expectations and unwind just as aggressively when those expectations change.

I generally agree with you, but if you look deeper, cars, buildings, and the underlying know-how didn’t appear in a day either.

Those were also iterative processes: first tires and mud houses, then horse carriages and brick houses, and eventually cars and buildings.

In that sense, it’s not fundamentally different from engineering today. Working on core engineering functionality of a company is essentially the same kind of process.

The difference lies in whether you’re working on core functionality, or on some iterative experiment that nobody knows will succeed.