pull down to refresh
I think they were going to make these layoffs anyway
Somewhat agree. But now every fintech/software CEO with a hardon for 20% stonks NgU will c&p this playbook, so the effect may be the same?
I really like that thought. I'm skeptical of many things, but I do have a weak spot for Jack so maybe that's a problem.
Bottom line however, does it really matter if (A) or (B) is the cause of the total destruction of people's livelihoods? I think that's the thing we're anyway seeing, no matter the excuse. Yeah, ZIRP is gone, and y'all got an extra paycheck from the Rona. But it's still destructive and I don't know what to do. I cannot think of a means to survive for the urban masses that are getting hit.
And that sucks. I'd like to build a solution.
Today was the third or fourth time I listened to one of his earnings calls and yeah, he's definitely sigma. Of course he has to do the brutal stuff, that's what the E is for. If you don't want that shit, stay a T or an O. I know, been all 3, with varying results - especially on the E.
However, I'm not ready to call bull on the entire thing. Justin and I discussed the "pairs instead of teams" thing the other day and we came to some similar conclusions that Jack was talking about. And he's not firing 60%, which means that control is tightening upstream.
Re: hiring back, there was definitely a point made about that somewhere, in a single sentence, but this is what I'm not 100% sure about, and I think neither are they. Because you need to design the product synergy to employ those extra people and expand your business. I don't think they're ready for that, because the roadmap they talk to isn't concrete yet. So they already have all these people allocated to the plan, they're going to speed up and lean up. Which is good.
At least they dared talking about precision as well as speed at a single point in the entire call. That is key. You don't wanna be a consumer yolocorp, because Karen willl have your ass.
I'm not ready to call bull on the entire thing
It's not bull. It's a real correlate. I'd guess earnings they were seeing data that earnings could tighten, understood that AI would allow them to reduce costs, and reduced costs. The cause imho was earnings and org bloat. AI is a scapegoat.
AI is an amazing scapegoat. In this way, AI imitating humans is blessing. This time, we have near-humans to blame for all the world's ills rather than humans with different beliefs/location/politics.
This time, we have near-humans to blame for all the world's ills rather than real humans with different beliefs/location/politics.
This is true. "sorry my PR is shit cuz claude", "sorry your kid killed themselves because gpt said they should but it saved 9 trillion others", "sorry for slop, it's ai" lol
Interesting. I guess I need to lower my standards next interview lol
I think about this interview with Bridgewater's CIO often: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDNXh4yYACM
I don't think these are AI layoffs. I think they were going to make these layoffs anyway. AI made them do it faster, differently perhaps. I think this is a 2-for-1 deal in investor signaling: (1) we are cost efficient, profits will go up (2) we are serious about AI.
If AI makes every person more productive, why would you want fewer people? If AI allows you to produce more with fewer people, you can produce tons more with more people.
There's a kind of duplicity required to be a lovable king - ruthless yet able to frame unpopular decisions as caused by adjacent/external/correlated/plausible things. Jack is good at it.