4 ms·

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 o

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 7mo ago
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 7mo ago
  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.
  - simianwords 7mo ago
    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?
  - 33MHz-i486 7mo ago
    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 7mo ago
      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
ej88 7mo ago
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
simianwords 7mo ago
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?

rxyz 7mo ago

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 7mo ago
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.
- simianwords 7mo ago
  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?
- 33MHz-i486 7mo ago
  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 7mo ago
    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

ej88 7mo ago

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

simianwords 7mo ago

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?