Wherever I worked (and as long as it was up to me), the mindset and expectation was that a junior we hire will need to become a medior in max 2 years. Of course, we provided the right investment (environment, mentorship, coaching, learning budget). This also acted as a filter at hiring. This way the question was never "for today's tasks do we need a senior OR a junior".
About AI: Unless there's another breakthrough, AI is not getting significantly better. A junior with 2 years of proper training easily surpasses AI in judgment and arch design skills, etc. - and you will need seasoned engineers to make the calls and shepherd AI even. Where will those people come from if nobody is investing in juniors?
If you do your hiring (and then mentorship) right, even such juniors can skyrocket in 1-2 years. AI won't do that. So, in case of willing juniors, you get much, much more "out of them" soon, if you invest a little. They will be able to tackle problems you can't solve by "throwing more AI at it"
Nope, it's the lawyer firms that come after you. Google removes reviews on request for its own comfort, but if you provide proof, they put it back. Then the lawyers come.
reply