Remember that Docusign has 7,000 employees. I think OpenAI is pretty lean for what they're accomplishing.
I don't think these comparisons are useful. Every time you look at companies like LinkedIn or Docusign, yeah - they have a lot of staff, but a significant proportion of this are functions like sales, customer support, and regulatory compliance across a bazillion different markets; along with all the internal tooling and processes you need to support that.
OpenAI is at a much earlier stage in their adventures and probably doesn't have that much baggage. Given their age and revenue streams, their headcount is quite substantial.
If we're making comparisons, its more like someone selling a $10,000 course on how to be a millionaire
Not directly from OpenAI - but people in the industry is advertising how these advanced models can replace employees, yet they keep on going on hiring tears (including OpenAI). Lets see the first company to stand behind their models, and replace 50% of their existing headcount with agents. That to me would be a sign these things are going to replace peoples jobs. Until I see that, if OpenAI can't figure out how to replace humans with models, then no one will
I mean could you imagine if todays announcement was - the chatgpt.com webdev team has been laid off, and all new features and fixes will be complete by Codex CLI + o4-mini. That means they believe in the product theyre advertising. Until they do something like that, theyll keep on trusting those human engineers and try selling other people on the dream
I'm also a skeptic on AI replacing many human jobs anytime soon. It's mostly going to assist, accelerate or amplify humans in completing work better or faster. That's the typical historical technology cycle where better tech makes work more efficient. Eventually that does allow the same work to be done with less people, like a better IP telephony system enabling a 90 person call center to handle the same call volume that previously required 100 people. But designing, manufacturing, selling, installing and supporting the new IP phone system also creates at least 10 new jobs.
So far the only significant human replacement I'm seeing AI enable is in low-end, entry level work. For example, fulfilling "gig work" for Fiverr like spending an hour or two whipping up a relatively low-quality graphic logo or other basic design work for $20. This is largely done at home by entry-level graphic design students in second-world locales like the Philippines or rural India. A good graphical AI can (and is) taking some of this work from the humans doing it. Although it's not even a big impact yet, primarily because for non-technical customers, the Fiverr workflow can still be easier or more comfortable than figuring out which AI tool to use and how to get what they really want from it.
The point is that this Fiverr piece-meal gig work is the lowest paying, least desirable work in graphic design. No one doing it wants to still be doing it a year or two from now. It's the Mcdonald's counter of their industry. They all aspire to higher skill, higher paying design jobs. They're only doing Fiverr gig work because they don't yet have a degree, enough resume credits or decent portfolio examples. Much like steam-powered bulldozers and pile drivers displaced pick axe swinging humans digging railroad tunnels in the 1800s, the new technology is displacing some of the least-desirable, lowest-paying jobs first. I don't yet see any clear reason this well-established 200+ year trend will be fundamentally different this time. And history is littered with those who predicted "but this time it'll be different."
I've read the scenarios which predict that AI will eventually be able to fundamentally and repeatedly self-improve autonomously, at scale and without limit. I do think AI will continue to improve but, like many others, I find the "self-improve" step to be a huge and unevidenced leap of faith. So, I don't think it's likely, for reasons I won't enumerate here because domain experts far smarter than I am have already written extensively about them.
Not really. It could also mean their company's effective headcount is much greater than its nominal one.
Yes and Amazon has 1.52 million employees. How many developers could they possibly need?
Or maybe it’s just nonsensical to compare the number of employees across companies - especially when they don’t do nearly the same thing.
On a related note, wait until you find out how many more employees that Apple has than Google since Apple has hundreds of retail employees.
what kind of employees does Docusign employ? surely Digital Documents dont require physical onsite distribution centers and labor
Just look at their careers page
Its a lot of sales/account managers. and some engineers
wow the sales go hard in this product