[lijok]

Which part of that sentence was confusing? I found it perfectly clear. Their internal AI use is exploding, which is a signal that they need to structure for that, and so they’re laying people off as one of the first steps towards actioning that signal.

Nowhere did they indicate there is less work to do, in fact quite the opposite.

[Snoozle]

The sentence is not confusing, the sentence doesn't mean anything. There's nothing confusing about it, but there's no information either. "We're making great strides in AI" and "We need to cut 20% of people" are simply two statements without any connection aside from the fact that they are next to each other in the sentence.

[simianwords]

> "We're making great strides in AI" and "We need to cut 20% of people" are simply two statements without any connection aside from the fact that they are next to each other in the sentence.

Huh? How is it not connected? More productivity means fewer people are required. I'm not sure how you are not able to connect these obviously connected statements.

[draftsman]

> More productivity means fewer people are required.

Required for what? If your goal is growth, and AI really is improving productivity of every employees that uses it, then why would you fire anyone?

[simianwords]

There’s an optimal number of employees required at any productivity point. Why don’t Google hire 3 times the number of developers? They have the money right? What’s your logic for not hiring more?

[epicide]

Because firing is not a zero-sum for hiring.

Hiring 1 developer instead of 3 is not the same cost as firing 2 developers.

[simianwords]

why is it not? if google can make more money by hiring 3x the developers, why didn't they do it? just explain that

[lijok]

Or maybe you don’t understand what it means because you’re not the target audience?

[Snoozle]

Enlighten me then as to the secret meaning behind the words used to communicate in the language we call English. Saying that AI is really transforming the company is fine. Saying that 20% of staff need to be laid off is fine. Those are understood terms. How do they relate? There's no explanation. Did cost need to be reduced? Did those people no longer add value? Was there certain projects that weren't profitable? Nothing is explained because meaning is avoided.

[SahAssar]

> Their internal AI use is exploding, which is a signal that they need to structure for that, and so they’re laying people off as one of the first steps towards actioning that signal.

I don't see anywhere where the jump from "structuring for AI" directly leads to "laying people off", unless "structuring for AI" means there is less work for people to do, do you?

[runnr_az]

I think it means - we're spending more money on AI thus we don't have as much to spend on people

[luckman212]

This will surely end well

[therealdrag0]

They have been hiring like crazy year after year. Undoing 1 year of hiring is not the end of the world.

[platevoltage]

I'm sure it probably feels like the end of the world for some people.

[therealdrag0]

Of course. Being laid off sucks, but that’s not relevant to this thread.

[lijok]

Noone knows what the correct structure for this new world looks like. We’ll see what they end up hiring for. But it’s fairly standard to lay off a bunch of people and hire new, rather than retrain, when you need to restructure

[solarkraft]

Isn’t it funny how the measure is how much AI is used instead of how productivity has evolved?

[lijok]

Not really. This is all so new, noone is using it correctly, because noone knows how to yet. We’re all just kind of flailing our arms around with it, but it’s clearly a force multiplier and its increased use is an actionable signal