Simon Willison’s Weblog

GitLab Act 2 (via) There's a lot going on in this announcement from GitLab about the "workforce reduction" and "structural and strategic decisions" they are making with respect to the agentic era.

• They're "planning to reduce the number of countries by up to 30% where we have small teams". One of the most interesting things about GitLab is that they have employees spread across a large number of countries - 18 are listed in their public employee handbook but this post says they are "operating in nearly 60 countries". That handbook used to document their payroll workflows for those countries too - they stopped publishing that in 2023 but the last public version (hooray for version control) remains a fascinating read. Since we don't know which of those 60 countries have small teams, we can't calculate how many countries that 30% applies to.
• "We're planning to flatten the organization, removing up to three layers of management in some functions so leaders are closer to the work." - this isn't the first announcement of this type I've seen that's trimming management. Coinbase recently announced a much more aggressive version of this: they were "flattening our org structure to 5 layers max below" and "No pure managers: Every leader at Coinbase must also be a strong and active individual contributor. Managers should be like player-coaches".
• In terms of team structure: "We're re-organizing R&D to create roughly 60 smaller, more empowered teams with end-to-end ownership, nearly doubling the number of independent teams." I've always loved the idea of individual teams that can ship features unblocked by other teams, and it makes sense to me that agentic engineering can increase the capability of such teams. The 37signals public employee handbook used to have a section on working In self-sufficient, independent teams which perfectly captured this for me, I'm sad to see they removed that detail in January 2024!
• Tucked away towards the bottom: "We will be retiring CREDIT as our values framework" - that's the values framework described on this page: "Collaboration, Results for Customers, Efficiency, Diversity, Inclusion & Belonging, Iteration, and Transparency". The new values are "Speed with Quality, Ownership Mindset, Customer Outcomes". The fact that "Diversity" is no longer in there is likely to attract a whole lot of attention, so it's worth noting that a sub-bullet under Customer Outcomes reads "Interpersonal excellence: individuals who are good humans, embrace diversity, inclusion and belonging, assume good intent and treat everyone with respect".

Here's the part of their new strategy that most resonated with me:

The agentic era multiplies demand for software. Software has been the force multiplier behind nearly every business transformation of the last two decades. The constraint was the cost and time of producing and managing it. That constraint is collapsing. As the cost of producing software collapses, demand for it will expand. Last year, the developer platform market used to be measured in tens of dollars per user per month, this year it is hundreds/user/month and headed to thousands. Not only is the value of software for builders increasing, but we believe there will be more software and builders than ever, and we will serve an increasing volume of both.

That very much encapsulates my own optimistic, Jevons-paradox-inspired hope for how this will all work out.

Their opinion on this does need to be taken with a big grain of salt though. GitLab's stock price was ~$52 a year ago and is ~$26 today, and it's plausible that the drop corresponds to uncertainty about GitLab's continued growth as agentic engineering eats its way through their core market.

If your entire business depends on software engineering growing as a field and producing larger volumes of more lucrative seats, you have a strong incentive to believe that agents will have that effect!

# 11th May 2026, 11:58 pm / 37signals, careers, ai, gitlab, coding-agents, jevons-paradox, agentic-engineering

Coding After Coders: The End of Computer Programming as We Know It. Epic piece on AI-assisted development by Clive Thompson for the New York Times Magazine, who spoke to more than 70 software developers from companies like Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, plus other individuals including Anil Dash, Thomas Ptacek, Steve Yegge, and myself.

I think the piece accurately and clearly captures what's going on in our industry right now in terms appropriate for a wider audience.

I talked to Clive a few weeks ago. Here's the quote from me that made it into the piece.

Given A.I.’s penchant to hallucinate, it might seem reckless to let agents push code out into the real world. But software developers point out that coding has a unique quality: They can tether their A.I.s to reality, because they can demand the agents test the code to see if it runs correctly. “I feel like programmers have it easy,” says Simon Willison, a tech entrepreneur and an influential blogger about how to code using A.I. “If you’re a lawyer, you’re screwed, right?” There’s no way to automatically check a legal brief written by A.I. for hallucinations — other than face total humiliation in court.

The piece does raise the question of what this means for the future of our chosen line of work, but the general attitude from the developers interviewed was optimistic - there's even a mention of the possibility that the Jevons paradox might increase demand overall.

One critical voice came from an Apple engineer:

A few programmers did say that they lamented the demise of hand-crafting their work. “I believe that it can be fun and fulfilling and engaging, and having the computer do it for you strips you of that,” one Apple engineer told me. (He asked to remain unnamed so he wouldn’t get in trouble for criticizing Apple’s embrace of A.I.)

That request to remain anonymous is a sharp reminder that corporate dynamics may be suppressing an unknown number of voices on this topic.

# 12th March 2026, 7:23 pm / new-york-times, careers, ai, generative-ai, llms, ai-assisted-programming, press-quotes, jevons-paradox, deep-blue

Jevons paradox (via) I've been thinking recently about how the demand for professional software engineers might be affected by the fact that LLMs are getting so good at producing working code, when prompted in the right way.

One possibility is that the price for writing code will fall, in a way that massively increases the demand for custom solutions - resulting in a greater demand for software engineers since the increased value they can provide makes it much easier to justify the expense of hiring them in the first place.

TIL about the related idea of the Jevons paradox, currently explained by Wikipedia like so:

[...] when technological progress increases the efficiency with which a resource is used (reducing the amount necessary for any one use), but the falling cost of use induces increases in demand enough that resource use is increased, rather than reduced.

# 8th July 2024, 11:23 pm / wikipedia, ai, generative-ai, llms, jevons-paradox