Michaล‚ "rysiek" Woลบniak ยท ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ฆ @rysiek@mstdn.social
Public

Meta reportedly plans sweeping layoffs as AI costs increase
theguardian.com/technology/202

> Sources tell Reuters layoffs could affect 20% or more of company as plans reflect broader tensions within big tech

Of course Meta is pretending this is because "effectiveness gains in AI".

But if an industry is laying off tens of thousands of people, maybe it's not magic, but an industry in deep crisis. Using "AI" as a convenient excuse to not have stockholders worried.

Meta reportedly plans sweeping layoffs as AI costs increase

Sources tell Reuters layoffs could affect 20% or more of company as plans reflect broader tensions within big tech

www.theguardian.com ยท the Guardian

0
0
1

If you have a fediverse account, you can quote this note from your own instance. Search https://mstdn.social/users/rysiek/statuses/116226720041425679 on your instance and quote it. (Note that quoting is not supported in Mastodon.)

David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*) @david_chisnall@infosec.exchange
Public

RE: mstdn.social/@rysiek/116226720

Louder for people at the back:

If โ€˜AIโ€™ gives you a 20% productivity increase, in an economic system that rewards growth at the expense of everything else, the rational thing for any company to do is use that productivity increase to expand into new markets. This may involve some redundancies because you need different skills for the new opportunities but they will be matched by increased hiring in the other areas. If you and your competitors both see a 20% increase in productivity and you use it to make people redundant and they use it to ship more products in more areas, then they will grow at your expense. Their products will be better than yours and you will lose market share.

If you are claiming that you have redundancies because โ€˜AIโ€™ is increasing productivity, then one of the following is true:

  • Your leadership team does not understand market economics (in which case, investors should worry that the board has not replaced obviously incompetent leadership).
  • You are an unchallengeable monopoly and have already filled all adjacent markets and have literally no possibility of growth (in which case, investors should take note and set their price predictions based on todayโ€™s revenue, with no expectation of future growth, which would wipe out over 80% of Metaโ€™s market cap).
  • You are lying about productivity gains (in which case, investors should worry about what else youโ€™re lying about and should start prodding the SEC to investigate).
0
8
0