Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

71% Positive

Analyzed from 321 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#companies#agent#down#years#company#workforce#through#without#shed#twitter

Discussion (5 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

cosmicgadget•12 minutes ago
Zuck would be the richest man on the planet if he had just let someone else take over 15 years ago.
altmanaltman•5 minutes ago
> While the company was pulling back from its most aggressive workforce reduction plans, Zuckerberg was building something for himself.

> He has been using a personal AI agent, described internally as a “CEO agent,” that allows him to retrieve answers he would typically have to go through multiple layers of staff to get, Euronews reported.

I don't know why I found this hilarious. Like what problem is the AI solving here that makes it revolutionary, break down the stupid 50 level chain of command that you yourself created? Like did he really think he could replace the C suite with an AI agent? If so, dude probably went through his own AI pyschosis period

mc32•about 1 hour ago
Even without the presumed capable A.I. A company like Meta could shed 60% and if done with precision and not suffer greatly. Twitter showed that many companies were running bloated workforces. They have slowly shed some of the excess over the last few years. With the right decisions they could "right-size" the org down by 60% without affecting products and services much. There might be some transition where adjustments take place, but it's not like they'd collapse.
cosmicgadget•19 minutes ago
Everyone was bloated by covid incentives. Twitter showed that if you have a moat you can cut your workforce down to keeping the lights on (for the most part) at the cost of innovation and growth. Many companies have to innovate or at least turn out product revisions to stay competitive.
zhivota•about 1 hour ago
I agree, my experience working in large organizations is that there is a ton of bloat everywhere you look.

I also think it would be good for the industry, too many really talented people are tied up in these super high paying jobs at the top companies, when they could be contributing elsewhere (the "golden handcuffs" effect).

In fact it was always my assumption that companies with basically unstoppable revenue streams (Google, Facebook, Visa, etc.) were, in part, overpaying and over-hiring just to remove the top end of talent from the market completely, and reduce the risk of being disrupted from startups and smaller competitors. It's interesting that they are finally backing away from that - I imagine that the AI boom has made them feel threatened for the first time in a long time.