Rich Nanda

1.7K posts

Rich Nanda banner
Rich Nanda

Rich Nanda

@richnanda

Deloitte Consulting | Chief Strategy Officer | Author of The Transformation Myth (MIT Press) | #growth #strategy #tech #AI & occasionally #wine #chicagosports

Chicago, IL Katılım Şubat 2010
951 Takip Edilen947 Takipçiler
Rich Nanda
Rich Nanda@richnanda·
🎯
Aaron Levie@levie

Whether it’s existing consulting firms, new ones that emerge, FDEs from agent vendors, or new internal agent engineering roles, the amount of work that is going to be created to implement agents in enterprises will exceed anything we imagine today. The complexity of implementing agents in any existing organizations is very real. When I talk to large enterprises, as you move from a chat paradigm to agents that participate in meaningful workflows, there are a number of things they need to do. First, you have to get agents to be able to talk to your data securely across your systems. In many cases, enterprises have decades of legacy infrastructure that contain the valuable context for AI agents. That’s going to take a ton of work to go modernize and move to systems that work well with agents. Then, you need to ensure that you’ve implemented agents with the right access controls and entitlements, the right scopes to be safely used, and have ways of monitoring, logging, and securing the work that they do. Next, you need to actually document the processes in the organization in a way that agents can utilize for doing the work. You also need to figure out what the new workflow looks like when agents and people are working together on a process, and who steps in where. Just replicating the old workflow will mute the gains. Oh and you likely need to create evals for your top new end-state processes. Finally, you have to keep up with a rapidly changing set of best practices and architectural shifts happening in the agent space. While it’s fun for people to change their personal productivity tools on a dime, it’s 100X harder to do this in a business process. The speed of change is a blessing and a curse right now for anyone trying to keep a stable system design. All of this means that individuals and companies that develop expertise on the above set of components (and more) are going to be needed to help organizations actually implement agents at scale. This is also the rationale for vertical AI agents right now that can go in deep on a business domain and help bring automation to it. This is a huge opportunity right now whether you’re doing this internally or as an external business provider.

ART
0
0
0
51
Rich Nanda
Rich Nanda@richnanda·
This. AI the great job creator.
Anthony Pompliano 🌪@APompliano

I have changed my mind on how AI will impact jobs in America. Previously, I believed AI would replace many entry level roles typically filled by young employees. The technology would then work its way up the organization and eventually reduce the total number of jobs in a company. The data is saying something different, so when I get new information I am willing to change my mind. The number of software engineers being hired has been increasing. The number of open software engineer roles is growing. The number of new college grads who get hired has increased 5.6% over the last 12 months. The unemployment level for people aged 20-24 years old who have a college degree has fallen from nearly 9% to almost 5% as well. The Wall Street Journal recently wrote “AI created 640,000 jobs between 2023 and 2025 in the U.S., according to an analysis by LinkedIn of job posting data, including new white-collar positions such as Head of AI and AI engineer.” And I am starting to see companies throughout our portfolio aggressively hiring to keep up with the demand for their products and services. If AI can make employees more productive, which is widely accepted as fact, then companies are going to want as many productive units of labor as possible. This is a key reason why I am changing my mind. AI appears to be a magical technology that will make companies more productive and more profitable. The net result will be more corporations, more startups, and more jobs. All three are big, positive wins for the American economy.

English
0
0
0
25
Rich Nanda retweetledi
Peter Berezin
Peter Berezin@PeterBerezinBCA·
I think AI economic doomers don’t realize just how strong a “this time is different” argument they are making.
Peter Berezin tweet media
English
48
41
562
188.3K
Rich Nanda
Rich Nanda@richnanda·
The cost of early (and often inefficient) innovation. Enterprises and their employees will get better and better with AI and business results will follow. As market results drive growth and performance, budgets for human and token intelligence will grow. But this is the jagged early innings.
Hedgie@HedgieMarkets

🦔Goldman Sachs reports that companies are blowing past their AI inference budgets by orders of magnitude, with inference costs in engineering now approaching 10% of total headcount costs and potentially reaching parity with salaries within several quarters. KPMG surveyed 2,100 senior leaders and found US companies plan to spend an average of $178 million on AI over the next 12 months, with Asia-Pacific firms budgeting $245 million and EMEA $157 million. The two reports together show companies are spending more than planned and intend to spend even more. My Take Inference costs approaching headcount parity is an extraordinary number that most finance teams did not model when they approved their AI strategies twelve months ago. The compute crunch, electrical component shortages, and GPU spot prices up 48% in two months are all flowing into corporate operating costs faster than anyone budgeted for, and Goldman's trajectory suggests it accelerates from here. What I find hard to reconcile is that $178 million average sitting alongside enterprise data showing eight in ten workers are either avoiding AI tools or not using them at all. Companies are committing to nine-figure inference budgets while their own employees aren't using what's already been deployed. I've watched this dynamic build all year and my honest read is that a significant portion of this spending is driven by competitive fear rather than demonstrated returns. Nobody wants to be the company that didn't invest in AI when everyone else did. That's how bubbles get funded, and at some point boards are going to demand a number that justifies it. Hedgie🤗

English
0
0
1
47
Rich Nanda retweetledi
Boring_Business
Boring_Business@BoringBiz_·
People are waking up to the fact that AI is a complementary tool for your skill set, and not a complete replacement for a skill If you are already a good coder or writer, AI tools can enhance that skill and make you more productive But if you bad at it, AI is not going to magically solve your deficiency This is the primary reason why I think the fears around AI replacement of labor are overblown
Boring_Business tweet media
English
62
41
580
40.9K
Rich Nanda
Rich Nanda@richnanda·
@BenBajarin "Sowing confusion" is right. The write-up seems a little too anchored on fixed sum TAM.
English
1
0
1
300
Ben Bajarin
Ben Bajarin@BenBajarin·
Nice paragraph from Melius on Anthropic's run rate: Anthropic wants to eat the world. "That Anthropic update was staggering. The exponential we are seeing below stems from the onset of software being tokenized to replace and augment a labor TAM that approximates to tens of trillions. It’s in inning one – and your narrative must be aligned with this exponential for your stock to work. The market is getting it right in SaaS – no platform is safe even as we’ve lost $1.4T in SaaS market cap since Anthropic was worth just $18B in January 2025. In the Mag 7, Anthropic’s rise is also sowing confusion. Microsoft’s 365 product is at risk from cuts in knowledge workers and it needs to build its own expensive frontier models (the best part of Office is Anthropic integration). Google competes with Anthropic, while also hosting it on GCP and supplying chips. Amazon’s retail business is arguably threatened by agents, while the reacceleration of its AWS business hinges on Anthropic. Much of Meta’s AI strategy competes as well. Nvidia is actually gaining share at Anthropic (ironically through chip buys at AWS), while Apple could turn out to be a pass-through mechanism. As confusion ensues into the IPOs for Anthropic, OpenAI and SpaceX, we still think you can count on AI semis being the oil fueling it all. Get ready though, if Anthropic is adding $2B in revenue a week from enterprises, there are bound to be casualties that many well-regarded management teams don’t see coming."
English
4
6
71
9.8K
Rich Nanda
Rich Nanda@richnanda·
@kimberlywtan That study will surely go down as flawed in the history books, and in no way is the study’s headline indicative of current enterprise progress. We’ve got a ways to go to full diffusion but enterprises are making steady and impactful progress.
English
0
0
0
46
Kaushik Subramanian
Kaushik Subramanian@TheHolyKau·
Oh you bought a @WHOOP ? Congrats, you like me are yet another person who spent $300 to figure out that eating well, exercising everyday and not drinking alcohol delivers better recovery and sleep
English
78
61
3.3K
307.1K
Rich Nanda retweetledi
James Pethokoukis ⏩️⤴️
James Pethokoukis ⏩️⤴️@JimPethokoukis·
Fro @stlouisfed: "Industries with higher AI adoption have experienced faster productivity growth, both in Europe and the U.S. As of now, we do not find evidence that AI adoption is associated with job losses at the industry level."
James Pethokoukis ⏩️⤴️ tweet media
English
1
4
12
7.8K
Rich Nanda
Rich Nanda@richnanda·
Can't come up with a better list. And then you have to add AI model company "jobspocaplyspe rhetoric" as fuel to the fire -- serves their purposes but doesn't square with the reality of the 4-5 scenarios outlined by @rodriscoll
Rory O'Driscoll@rodriscoll

AI has become the justification for every layoff. It's the perfect excuse card, but there is a lot of spin involved. Every layoff is some combo of the following five very different AI stories. 1. Nothing changed, we just realized we have too many people. We are going to blame AI, but we are bullshitting. This is the AI as an excuse; it was really sloppy hiring, and we are just blaming AI. (See Block) 2. Growth has gone away so now we have too many people. This may be because of AI if you are a SaaS company. All the customer love is now going to AI. But it's less AI as a productivity lift, and more about you just building a less ambitious growth company. (See Salesforce and most every SaaS company) 3. We spent our money on capex to build AI so now we can’t afford as many people. Management may say it’s about AI making us productive (4 below) but my gut is a lot of it is about Nvidia getting our money so now there is none for you. (See Meta and Oracle) 4 We are really using AI the way god intended us to. We don't need as many people. This is the ONLY version of the story that is actually about a productivity increase. It's real, it's happening, but I wonder if it is even the majority of the layoffs. (See some software engineering departments right now) @jasonlk raised a fifth reason that doesn't get talked about enough: we just have the wrong people. Maybe we don't need 20 engineers who all know C++, but rather eight who have strong AI skills. This I think should be happening everywhere. Every time a layoff announcement comes out, I try and mentally categorize per the above.

English
0
0
0
40
Rich Nanda
Rich Nanda@richnanda·
@rodriscoll Can't come up with a better list. And then you have to add AI model company "jobspocaplyspe rhetoric" as fuel to the fire -- serves their purposes but doesn't square with the reality of the 4-5 above.
English
0
0
0
71
Rory O'Driscoll
Rory O'Driscoll@rodriscoll·
AI has become the justification for every layoff. It's the perfect excuse card, but there is a lot of spin involved. Every layoff is some combo of the following five very different AI stories. 1. Nothing changed, we just realized we have too many people. We are going to blame AI, but we are bullshitting. This is the AI as an excuse; it was really sloppy hiring, and we are just blaming AI. (See Block) 2. Growth has gone away so now we have too many people. This may be because of AI if you are a SaaS company. All the customer love is now going to AI. But it's less AI as a productivity lift, and more about you just building a less ambitious growth company. (See Salesforce and most every SaaS company) 3. We spent our money on capex to build AI so now we can’t afford as many people. Management may say it’s about AI making us productive (4 below) but my gut is a lot of it is about Nvidia getting our money so now there is none for you. (See Meta and Oracle) 4 We are really using AI the way god intended us to. We don't need as many people. This is the ONLY version of the story that is actually about a productivity increase. It's real, it's happening, but I wonder if it is even the majority of the layoffs. (See some software engineering departments right now) @jasonlk raised a fifth reason that doesn't get talked about enough: we just have the wrong people. Maybe we don't need 20 engineers who all know C++, but rather eight who have strong AI skills. This I think should be happening everywhere. Every time a layoff announcement comes out, I try and mentally categorize per the above.
English
58
153
1.7K
403.3K
Rich Nanda
Rich Nanda@richnanda·
@ernietedeschi Found this research relevant and timely. The AI lab jobspocalypse narrative is self-serving and misses the intricacy of all the "tasks" that compose any given job in an enterprise. x.com/lugaricano/sta…
Luis Garicano 🇪🇺🇺🇦@lugaricano

Famously (there is a beautiful Works in Progress piece on this) in 2016, Geoffrey Hinton told an audience in Toronto that medical schools should stop training radiologists, since AI would soon outperform them at reading scans. Ten years later, there are more radiologists than ever, and they earn more than they did then. Hinton was right about the task, but he was wrong (so far!) on the future of the radiology profession. Times have never been better for them. The gap between those two claims, the difference between tasks and jobs, is the subject of a paper I have written with Jin Li and Yanhui Wu, and that we release today: "Weak Bundle, Strong Bundle: How AI Redraws Job Boundaries." (Very relatedly we are also finishing the first draft of our book "Messy Jobs" on AI and Jobs!! You will be the first to hear). We start from the observation that the growing literature on AI and labor markets measures the AI shock by task exposure: people count how many tasks AI can perform in a given occupation AI can perform, and infer that more exposure means more displacement. Eloundou et al. published a paper in Science in 2024 that started this literature, and many follow the same logic. The inference they make is that the more exposed tasks, the worse the outcomes. This is incomplete, because labor markets price jobs, not tasks. A radiologist does not just sell image classification, but does many other jobs: triages cases, communicates with other physicians, trains residents, makes the difficult decisions, and signs a diagnosis. The market buys a bundled service. The question AI poses is not whether it can do one task inside the bundle. The question is whether that task can be pulled out. Thread (1/3) dropbox.com/scl/fo/689u1g7…

English
0
0
1
66
Ernie Tedeschi
Ernie Tedeschi@ernietedeschi·
So far, entry-level share of employment in legal, financial, & office admin occupations doesn't look functionally different from pre-2023 trends (the population is aging so important to benchmark). A bit above trend for legal, a bit below for finance, in line for office admin.
Ernie Tedeschi tweet media
CG@cgtwts

Anthropic CEO: “50% of all entry-level Lawyers, Consultants, and Finance Professionals will be completely wiped out within the next 1–5 years." grad students and junior hires are cooked.

English
1
20
86
19.5K
Rich Nanda
Rich Nanda@richnanda·
@buccocapital @akramsrazor Great assessment of the current moment and sentiment. Which has created even more upside for those willing to place a bet, answer the questions at hand, and get in the game.
English
0
0
0
392
BuccoCapital Bloke
BuccoCapital Bloke@buccocapital·
Must read from @akramsrazor The market has completely given up on trying to figure out who wins from AI. It will only buy the inputs. But: "If you can't make money in every software, adtech, media, info services biz, and hyperscaler, then why are you buying lasers and cables? The picks-and-shovels trade isn’t insulated from the demand/return question, it's a levered bet on it."
BuccoCapital Bloke tweet media
English
43
47
779
97.7K