The ITPro Podcast

The episode is primarily a news summary with a few non-obvious observations - most notably the talent pipeline destruction argument - but is heavily padded with circular agreement, repetition of the 'skills shortages aren't new' point, and casual throat-clearing that dilutes the insight-per-minute rate.

“if you completely cut the legs out of under the entry level jobs by automating everything, you're going to end up with a problem because you end up with nobody”

“I don't think this is anything new. I think it's just wrapped with AI”

The takes are almost entirely conventional - skills shortage isn't new, AI needs power infrastructure, open source debates are messy - with only the 'no true Scotsman' framing for open source and the irony of AI creating demand rather than reducing it offering any conceptual freshness.

“Not to offend any guests of said podcast, but it does feel sometimes like a bit of a no true Scotsman argument when it comes to open source”

“the whole point of AI was that it was going to reduce the need for workers doing things. So how come it's actually increasing the problem”

The sole 'guest' is IT Pro's own news editor - a journalist summarising reports rather than an operator or practitioner who has built or deployed AI infrastructure at scale; there are no external industry experts present.

“joining us this episode, as ever, uh, at the end of the month, is IT Pro's news editor, Ross Kelly”

Several concrete figures and named sources are cited (Gartner, McKinsey, Savills, Native Teams/Robert Waters) with real statistics, but all numbers are lifted wholesale from third-party reports with no original data, first-hand case studies, or deeper interrogation of methodology.

“300,000 open roles, um, in terms of AI skills, um, but we have a supply of around 137,000 people in this domain”

“387% increase in AI roles between Q1 of 2023 and Q1 of 2026”

The conversation is collegial rather than rigorous - hosts mostly agree with each other and topics are dispatched quickly; there are occasional moments of critical probing (questioning Savills' commercial angle, flagging the AI-demand paradox) but no genuine pushback or deep follow-up on any claim.

“I am keen to know why Savills is in this, in this news story and what stake has it got in this news story”

“Also potentially the issue is that these are not entry level roles that we're talking about”