site banner

Small-Scale Question Sunday for June 7, 2026

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

3
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

What employees have you fired so far?

In Zvi's recent post, I noticed an interesting pairing of two things:

Sell your house. Stuart Thompson lets Gemini (because he had a free account there from work that saved him $8 a month?!) walk him through everything involved in the sale, including being his agent. The problem is, Stuart does not seem to realize he does not know the counterfactual?

Stuart A. Thompson: In the end, using A.I. netted me more than $90,000. That includes the premium over the asking price, plus the roughly $36,000 in fees I didn’t pay.

I mean, yes, the agents he talked to early on told him he’d lose money, and instead he turned a profit. But only after the sale did he talk to another agent for an expert opinion, and that expert expected a higher sale price than Stuart got, meaning he almost certainly listed too low. Stuart thinks that after the agent fee he still basically broke even, but I’m guessing he put in more work and stress this way, and took on more downside risk. I know that if I am ever selling or buying, I will be using AI extensively as part of the effort, but I am going to stick with Danielle Wiedemann. I am confident that her help, connections and advice were worth far more than the fee, and would be again.

and:

For those confused about the radiology example, yes, AI is better than radiologists at reading x-rays, and many other components of professional services, and does so at cost epsilon, and this is super useful. Even if no one is out of work quite yet, often there is a ton of value in ‘pretty good answer, vastly better than you could otherwise get without a professional, for cost ~$0’ when the professional costs $1,000 and up.

It was a bit stark, because getting a pretty good answer, vastly better than you could otherwise get without a real estate professional, would seem to cost ~$0, when the professional apparently costs something like $36,000 and up. So why not fire the real estate agent?

There could be a variety of reasons involving the nature of the work, regulatory barriers, etc., but one thing that comes to mind is that Zvi has paid for a real estate agent before and is consciously thinking about what that situation is like when thinking about whether he would hire again. Whereas, I doubt he's hired a radiologist before and is probably not in a situation where he's thinking super seriously about the considerations that would be involved if he had a need for such a service.

This leads me to ask, "Which employees have you fired?" In this case, "employees" can be read broadly, covering folks like real estate agents/radiologists, who you may procure services from on occasion, in addition to actual employment relations if you're a manager/business owner. But I want to particularly hone in on examples where you have paid a human for a particular service in the past and have subsequently encountered a nearly-identical need, but have chosen to not pay a human now for the service.

This question is in significant part simply selfish. I might be missing some aspect in my life where I can save a bunch of money. That would be cool, and I'd like to do that if I can.

The AI radiologist has the same problem as the self-driving car and the AI lawyer. Tech companies can tout their products all they want, but unless they're a value add for a radiologist who isn't getting fired, they aren't going to be adopted. Whenever you hire a professional to do something, part of the cost is paying for the work, but another part of the cost is paying for someone else to be responsible for the work. I can do a lot of things on my own car, but I'm not touching anything that can cause catastrophic damage if I fuck it up. Even if taking it to a mechanic doesn't reduce this risk, if the mechanic fucks up they're responsible for it. Same thing with the radiologist—if it misses a serious problem who is going to take responsibility in a malpractice suit? The hospital? The tech company? Considering that both have spent decades vehemently denying that they have any responsibility for how end-users use their products or licensed professionals under their employ, as the case may be, I doubt either of these is going to change their position just because of AI. The first lawsuit will likely suck up whatever cost savings they see, and I doubt the carriers would be on board.

Lawyers and doctors are a rather special case though (and self-driving cars appear to have been solved given Waymo's rapid expansion). When a company hires a product manager, a customer support person, an executive assistant, a marketing executive, a salesperson, a software developer, or the myriad other back office roles that fill a standard corp, they are not especially worried about potential liabilities (financial roles excepted). You don't need many of those roles to be replaced before serious economic consequences become apparent, and the protection of law or medicine is rendered moot.

That being said, I do think there will be a lot of inertia just by the nature of corporations. Most big corpos are already too big and could probably have slashed 20% of their workforce even before AI. It's part of the nature of the firm and not something easily shaken off.