[MeetingsBrowser]

I don't understand anyone who says layoffs are due to improvements in AI tooling.

"Thanks to LLMs, each worker can do twice the work they could before. Naturally we are firing half the company because ... business is good and ... too much productivity is bad?"

[Refreeze5224]

It's simple: it's just a lie. We are seeing the goal of AI in action here, which is reducing payroll costs.

[djeekle]

Since the rush for AGI isn’t panning out, I can see tech firms engaging in tacit collusion that aims to reduce the salaries of software engineers.

There’s proof of tech firms engaging in explicit collusion back in the 00’s.

[MeetingsBrowser]

I also don't understand that take.

Imagine you run a mowing service with 4 employees. Suddenly 2 more people volunteer to mow yard for your company for free!

Is your reaction to fire two of the paid employees and keep mowing the same number of yards (with reduced payroll costs), or to expand the business to mow more yards?

Which of those responses feels more in line with a "strong and growing" business that is "continuing to support more customers" and has "improving profitability"?

[simianwords]

> Thanks to LLMs, each worker can do twice the work they could before. Naturally we are firing half the company because ... business is good and ... too much productivity is bad

this is an incorrect take. The company needs a certain amount of productivity at each point.

If not, how would you explain that they had only 10,000 employees and not 20,000? They could still remain profitable.

LLM's increased productivity and each person could do approximately 20% more work so it follows that they need fewer people. If not, they should have had 12,000 to begin with.

[MeetingsBrowser]

I agree if they weren’t simultaneously claiming to be a successful growing company.

> they should have had 12,000 to begin with

This is how successful growing companies work. They hire as many people as they can afford. Those people bring in more money to hire more people, and repeat.

A successful growing company has more opportunity than resources.

Reducing resources while also claiming to have un-captured opportunity makes no sense

[geraneum]

> If not, how would you explain that they had only 10,000 employees and not 20,000?

Simple, 1000+ salaries > 10000 x100$/m Claude seats.

[johnnienaked]

"they should not have had 12,000 to begin with"

Nailed it

[retinaros]

it does not work like that except in a berkeley mba mind

[sealeck]

> The company needs a certain amount of productivity at each point.

Um, no?