[hokumguru]

I'm still not sure I quite agree with this AI replacement premise.

Assuming the premise of profitability and a sound business then this sounds like a failure of product if anything. It just doesn't follow for me that when you see more productive teams the immediate answer is that you need less people. Especially for silicon valley types this seems antithetical to scaling.

Thinking of it in two ways

- Yes you could (in theory but I still argue not 100%) cut workforce and have a smaller # of people do the work that everyone else was doing

Or

- You could keep your people, who are ostensibly more productive with AI, and get even more work done

Why would you ever choose the first?

[rxyz]

Dorsey is in AI psychosis. He required every employee to send him an email weekly which then he had summarized by AI because of course he aint reading it himself.

[MeetingsBrowser]

Even in "AI psychosis" I don't see how firing people is a logical response to advances in AI.

If AI tools really are a significant multiplier to productivity, companies should be hiring more people to take advantage of that multiplier.

If you suddenly have the ability to get more output per dollar spent, a healthy business should respond by spending more dollars, not spending less to keep output the same.

[33MHz-i486]

because demand is weak and the product markets are saturated. there are dimishing returns to increasing investment. so these companies switch to managing their earnings ratio. if you cant grow revenue, then cut costs.

[MeetingsBrowser]

But that’s not what they are claiming.

> our business is strong. gross profit continues to grow, we continue to serve more and more customers

The implied claim is that they have more work to do but need fewer people to do the extra work effectively

[simianwords]

at every productivity point there's an optimal number of employees needed.

at the previous productivity it was 10,000 employees. not 10,001 nor 9,999.

at the current productivity it is 6,000.

why are you so sure that the 6,001th employee can increase profits but not the 10,001th employee before AI?

[simianwords]

Their headcount was around 10,000. Before AI, do you think each additional employee after 10,000th would increase the profit?

- if yes, then why didn't they hire more employees?

- if no, then isn't it obvious that they don't need more than 6,000 employees who are approximately 20% more productive? if the 6,001th employee can add profit then surely 10,001th could've also added right?

[ej88]

i feel similarly. suppose ai makes people more productive:

1. companies that are not doing well (slow growth, losing to competition etc) or are in a monopoly and are under pressure to save in the short term are going to use the added productivity to reduce their opex

2. companies that are doing well (growth, in competitive markets) will get even more work done and can't hire enough people

my hunch is block is not doing as well as they seem to be