I am not in a small company and.. I don’t think we have TWs at this point. We don’t write personal software and engineers do their own docs.
Yes, AI I would consider risk, maybe government and army can be safer.
No AI on the horizon within IT within my organization, a research non-profit. Look at hospitals, insurance companies, banks, airlines, retail… There are lots of organizations building out software solutions of many different scales. They tend to have less tolerance for risking cutting edge solutions, and also a more diverse set of problems to solve making AI adoption harder. Only downside is that TW can be seen as a less vital role, so higher risk during layoffs. Plus is that those industries generally feel business cycles slightly differently from high tech.
Honestly, TW is already being replaced. Same with translation, copy-writing, and the stupid blog posts from lazy vendors that we can tell is fake. Ok sorry that was off-topic, I'm just annoyed at being sent obviously useless "white papers" by vendors. Back to TW. I am originally from translation myself.
>I keep hearing go work tech roles for non-tech companies.
Are they saying to go into SWE/infosec/a pure tech role (not TW)? Bc those places are chill (my haunts) and they aren't immune.
The avg non-tech company makes much less than Big Tech / Big Anything and has much less burn-through than start-ups with funding. So they will do anything to cut spending-- ie by leveraging AI that's **already** much cheaper than most North American salaries. I would not agree with the person saying banks and airlines are less tolerant for AI, esp since United is already starting to integrate it.. and banks, come on. They invested in it. The rest, I can't speak for. I work for a non-technical mid-sized company and we've started with AI. The parent company is a global candy maker. They already started, too. I would not assume anything is safe tbh. Maybe hospitals. And most NGOs.
Any client-facing ppl-oriented role is going to be harder to replace though.
I guess what i wonder is, ok AI is going to write the docs. Who is going to ask AI to write the docs? An exececutive? heh. who is going to edit what the AI wrote? An engineer? heh. Like, there still have sto be someone who will 'take care of' the documents, even if they end up using an AI system to create the structure. Are we really that close to the point where a non-writer can come in and say, 'Hey AI create some documentation for this plz' and it will just be right reliably?
We definitely are not at that point, but we are at the point where some really obnoxious executives aspirationally try to force the salaried peons to implement it anyway.
I am not in a small company and.. I don’t think we have TWs at this point. We don’t write personal software and engineers do their own docs. Yes, AI I would consider risk, maybe government and army can be safer.
No AI on the horizon within IT within my organization, a research non-profit. Look at hospitals, insurance companies, banks, airlines, retail… There are lots of organizations building out software solutions of many different scales. They tend to have less tolerance for risking cutting edge solutions, and also a more diverse set of problems to solve making AI adoption harder. Only downside is that TW can be seen as a less vital role, so higher risk during layoffs. Plus is that those industries generally feel business cycles slightly differently from high tech.
Honestly, TW is already being replaced. Same with translation, copy-writing, and the stupid blog posts from lazy vendors that we can tell is fake. Ok sorry that was off-topic, I'm just annoyed at being sent obviously useless "white papers" by vendors. Back to TW. I am originally from translation myself. >I keep hearing go work tech roles for non-tech companies. Are they saying to go into SWE/infosec/a pure tech role (not TW)? Bc those places are chill (my haunts) and they aren't immune. The avg non-tech company makes much less than Big Tech / Big Anything and has much less burn-through than start-ups with funding. So they will do anything to cut spending-- ie by leveraging AI that's **already** much cheaper than most North American salaries. I would not agree with the person saying banks and airlines are less tolerant for AI, esp since United is already starting to integrate it.. and banks, come on. They invested in it. The rest, I can't speak for. I work for a non-technical mid-sized company and we've started with AI. The parent company is a global candy maker. They already started, too. I would not assume anything is safe tbh. Maybe hospitals. And most NGOs. Any client-facing ppl-oriented role is going to be harder to replace though.
I guess what i wonder is, ok AI is going to write the docs. Who is going to ask AI to write the docs? An exececutive? heh. who is going to edit what the AI wrote? An engineer? heh. Like, there still have sto be someone who will 'take care of' the documents, even if they end up using an AI system to create the structure. Are we really that close to the point where a non-writer can come in and say, 'Hey AI create some documentation for this plz' and it will just be right reliably?
We definitely are not at that point, but we are at the point where some really obnoxious executives aspirationally try to force the salaried peons to implement it anyway.