[gombosg]

I still don't get it.

If AI really improves efficiency and allows the company's employees to produce more, better products faster and thus increase the competitiveness of a company... then why does said company fire (half of!) its staff instead of, well, producing more, better products faster, thus increasing its competitiveness?

Am I naive or is AI a lie when marked as a cause?

Why is it that us employees are gaslighted with the FOMO of "if you don't adopt AI to produce more, then you'll be replaced by employees who do", and why do these executives don't feel "if you fire half of your employees for whatever reason, you'll be outcompeted by companies who... simply didn't?"

[joshhart]

If you have good ideas that have a nice return on investment and leverage existing skills, sure. If you don’t have good opportunity laying around, best for the business to switch to maintenance mode, which means cutting staff. Or maybe cut staff, then use equity to buy growth via acquisition. It really depends on the business. Block’s growth has slowed so perhaps this would have happened anyway and AI is just what’s getting the blame.

[GeoAtreides]

Let's say AI increases productivity per capita by 50%

That means 50% of current headcount now has the same productivity as 100%

Now we calculate:

A = OPEX costs cuts by firing 50% of personal

B = Profit increase by the AI 50% productivity increase while not firing anyone

if A>B, reduce headcount

if B>A, reduce headcount and then increase workload on remaining employees until profits increase

[sealeck]

> instead of, well, producing more, better products faster, thus increasing its competitiveness?

Probably because this is not Block's business strategy. If they could do this, then they would...

[oytis]

It may be just bullshit, it probably is. But it also can be that the market demand for software is not as infinite as we thought it is in SaaS era.