It is about AI. The news is "the AI is far less monetarily lucrative endeavour than we thought but don't worry, we already fired enough people to compensate for the loss"
... the just around the corner syndrome. And when new quite capable model comes, prices triple in 6 months like with chatgpt 5.5 now and they are still losing on it. Soon, hiring that junior will be cheaper than monthly subscription. I am struggling to imagine ie some big bank willing to invest just for this say 50 millions a month.
Then within few years, when the amount of bugs in quickly produced software skyrockets and it will be extremely hard to debug that code by hand, market will change again. These llms will find their solid place but not at current projection/investment wishful thinking. And definitely not for software that is continuously developed, changed and fixed for decades (which is default for most corporate apps, be them internal or vendor ones).
From what I can tell, its more about cashflow - basically companies need to spend most of their revenue or be taxed on it - and you can buy only so many servers.
Now capital can flow towards AI - I'm sure the reason why engineers at Boeing or GM don't make the same money as software devs do is that their industries are otherwise capital intensive, among other things.
That’s just what people with money tell the people without money to stop them from rioting. We have research that suggests that money indeed does buy happiness.
There are exceptions of course. Some people are just predisposed to being unhappy no matter the circumstances, but generally speaking more money directly correlates to increased life contentment.
I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. As I understand it, happiness increases for most people as their income increases. However, this doesn't mean that a person is happy overall since there are other factors. So, it's not that money can buy happiness in a binary sense, but it's a factor and often a significant one.
The article even ends with this quote from one of the authors of the study (emphasis added):
“Money is not the secret to happiness, but it can probably help a bit.”
> Specifically, for the least happy group, happiness rises with income until $100,000, then shows no further increase as income grows. For those in the middle range of emotional well-being, happiness increases linearly with income, and for the happiest group the association actually accelerates above $100,000.
Exactly. There are other things you can do to be happy and some personalities are simply miserable, but there's nobody who's better off with less money. I'd be curious to see if this holds in societies with better social safety nets for whom money isn't as directly tied to survival or options in how to live.
It sure as shit buys relief from lots of sources of stress (even little ones like "having, non-optionally, to track how many dollars of goods are in your shopping cart at the grocery store" or "having to check how much money's in the account before you start pumping gas") and credible safety from various very-real threats (e.g. homelessness, not being able to afford important medical treatment). Like, it's extremely good at that.
It buys actual non-hypothetical liberty, as in greater choice to do what you like with your time and your self. It relieves one from unpleasant but necessary tasks (by paying someone else to do them).
As the article touches on, it's not just about what happened in 2020, but why it hasn't rebounded. It's been long enough we can't use 2020 as an excuse.
It's the housing prices and the affordability of life in general. We are all debt slaves now. I am 100% using 2020 as an excuse because it broke the market and sent housing prices up 50%+ in 6 months.
The fact that we are entertaining 50 year mortgages as a "solution" further adds insult to injury.
Nobody talks about how the "cure" was worse than the disease in 2020. Happiness matters and is worth dying for.
Similarly, I roll my eyes when people still blame Ronald Reagan for the current homeless situation in California. There's been plenty of time to correct that mistake and well???
But honestly, IMO America has become a joyless, directionless dystopia of soma and bread and circuses in the middle of a geopolitical knife fight to define the 21st century and maybe even hit the singularity. I'm not happy with the current management, but it was the same unhappy bunch talked about here that decided by voting or opting not to vote that gave it a second shot. Kinda deserve this, no? If no, I'm all ears for your one weird trick to fix America, go for it!
Yeah I know, downvotes incoming for such heresy. If you don't pick a side, then what are you even doing?
Pretty much. Lots of people who really were violently supportive of those measures will never admit to themselves what a horrible, entirely predictable mistake it all was.
It absolutely destroyed a ton of very good things, perhaps forever.
America is rich, but that money is spent on new problems we invented for ourselves. We subsidize farmers growing unhealthy foods, then subsidize buying those unhealthy foods through food stamps. Then we subsidize healthcare to address the consequences of extra obesity.
Single-use zoning makes it illegal to build the places people want to go within walking distance of where they live, so we spend trillions over decades building car infrastructure to allow people to commute. Of course the consequences of commuting by car is more pollution and less exercise, again causing health issues.
Given that the definition of "AGI" is meaningless, my definition of "AGI" is what it is been used for right now, rather than what any of these CEOs are promising:
It means layoffs with AI, with the smokescreen of "abundance".
Wonder if there is a self fulfilling prophecy. These large "AI" companies push their models/platforms for increasing productivity. If they're not reducing their own workforce or increasing productivity and reaching larger growth and profits, why would the rest of the world believe them and do the same.
if you've ever been through a Meta loop (and their method is to cast an extremely wide net, so chances are you have), you've seen how inefficient their loop can be for long term success
6-7 38* minute interviews, while the interviewee is trying to squeeze in showcasing their skills and experience, the interviewer is obsessed with figuring out a rigid set of pre-determined "signals"
Once these candidates actually start work, their success in the team is a complete coinflip
* 38 minutes = 45 minute scheduled - 2 minute intro - 5 minute saved for candidate questions at the end
That wasn't my experience at all. I had a recruiter screen where she asked me some technical questions. I then had a longer discussion, then a code screen, then an arch-deep-dive. The entire process was very professional and EVERY person came off like they really wanted me to succeed. (Sure it's an act but it's a very helpful act when you're in the hot seat)
My intervews were in 20202/2021. Perhaps things have changed?
Back in 2020, $META was desperate to hire. Nowadays the tide has turned and interview process shifted accordingly. They are super picky now, even for those who nail every stage of the interview, folks are still routinely passed over.
I interviewed in the past 2 years and my experience matches the parent. Very professional and the interviewers were great to talk to. Same with Google.
Things have changed. I worked with a very senior and professional recruiter at FB during that time. While things didn't work out then, someone else reached maybe a year and a half ago for a fairly similar role -- massive difference, strictly a disposable drone style process and barely a conversation. I chose to not even start the process.
A sample size of one but many anecdotes together can make a trend.
So let me ask this. What is the perfect mix of inerviews and durations?
If you ask my blue collar friends, the answer is one and however long it takes to drink three beers.
If you ask any married person, the onboarding process (courtship) may last YEARS and consist of many interviews (dates).
As an EM, ive always struggled with this one. Im about to invest some serious coin and brainspace for you, so I tended towards a max of 3-6 total hours and a takehome assignment.
As an IC, I preferred short and sweet. Heres my portfolio (github), heres my resume. Lets make this work. Maybe 1-2 hours; its not like we're getting married.
The happy place has to be in there somewhere. Whats your take?
I’ve never worked at big tech but the usual interview process I’ve seen is one initial phone call to check both sides are on the same page and it’s worth scheduling an interview. Then a technical interview, sometimes a take home task, then a non technical interview with management. There’s no reason you need longer than that.
The "usual" process in big tech is a recruiter call, 1-2 technical screening calls (sometimes an EM call), then the main series of 3-6 domain knowledge interviews are done over 1-2 days.
The latter are pretty grueling, especially when conducted on-site. Apple recommends you show up 1-2 hours ahead so you have enough time to get through security, for example.
That might be fine if they are offering incredible pay and conditions at a highly desirable company. But you get so many mid tier companies looking at Apple and Google and replicating their process without the pay or reason to put up with that process.
I just eject from the interview process when I hear it's going to be so many rounds because I know there will be another company that's just as good that will get it done with less.
Rigorous formal education, multiple rigorous exams, then years of shadowing and training. I went through this process, and tech interviews are a breeze by comparison.
That's presumably what he meant but the response is highly relevant nonetheless. Comparing credentialed and noncredentialed professions is apples to oranges here because the credentialed professions effectively consist of pools of prescreened candidates. Among those, MDs in particular have an absolutely grueling process before they can get started. Imagine if your surgeon (versus backend dev) was proud of being self taught.
Pilots and doctors are exhaustively certified for a very narrow set of work. A cop gets a title, to perform a job that's identical in every part of the country.
Software development is neither exhaustively certified, nor narrow, nor perfectly transposable.
Developers want a 15 minutes interview, but also scream "Would you ask a builder if he has experience with blue hammers specifically?" when they get denied an interview because they do not have experience with the exact tech stack of a company.
Because that's how pilots and doctors work. They not only need to have experience with a blue hammer specifically, but it needs to be exact same make and model.
Imagine if a GP claimed to be neurosurgeon because they cured a headache. Developers get to call themselves fullstack the day they modify an API route.
My doctor probably thinks we software developers do a very narrow job. And she is kind of right, we always turn up with those back problems from sitting too much, or RSI or whatever. While doctors have all those medical specializations and different roles and employers.
While I cannot respond as a doctor, I can respond as an EMT. Totally different. But heres the deal.
The person who is the most important to you on the worst day of your life is the emt. The interview was literally "do you have a drivers license, and are you grossed out by stuff?" The rest you learned on the job.
Weird how doctors are vetted but prehospital folk are not.
edit yes there is training, but it happens after hire
Pilot at a major airline here: 1.5 hours of interviews with two people (recruiter and another pilot). Technical and HR-style questions, a personality test, no other homework.
Blood test, background check including all prior training records that are reported to the FAA.
Not a lot of work for the candidate in the interview, but it's easy to fail one too many training events or accumulate a violation and become radioactive.
Doctors are continually interviewed every time a patient gets pissed and sues them or files a board complaint. If there's any fault they're (very publicly) assigned remedial training or put on a PIP. They're also in incredibly high demand, so its often the doctor interviewing the practice.
If the interview is for becoming a partner at a practice, it's a two way courtship that's more reminiscent of other businesses looking for a co-owner.
Doctors also tend to hear about each other. Even in decent sized metro areas, they can often know who to avoid.
(This process isn't perfect, but it's still way different than for software.)
At my last job we generally had 3 interviews beyond the initial screening. One was a coding challenge (1 hour with 45 really working on the challenge), one was an architecture discussion, and one was more of a culture fit and similar with the hiring manager.
It worked very well for us, I was a bit surprised with some of the red flags that showed up that I wouldn't have expected to be caught in the hiring rounds done at previous jobs.
The short interview time helps keeping the interview process focused on high signal questions/discussions. That is better than a 1h where 1/3 of the process is a bunch of soft balls.
What I don’t like about them is how “dry” and mechanical the interview feels
I believe they optimize for fairness and consistency. They interview a huge number of people from very different backgrounds so they need a standardized process. It's not perfect but I can understand the logic. And there's team matching phase if the candidate pass the interview, it's not a random allocation.
This was exactly my experience too. The interviewer seemed more focused on checking boxes on the grading rubric than actually understanding the design discussion. They barely engaged with alternative approaches.
The interviewer was also very hard for me to understand, which made the interview harder than it should have been.
I am ESL too, so this is not about someone’s background. The problem is communication in an interview where both sides need to understand each other clearly.
From what I have seen on Blind, others have had similar experiences.
It's an honest surprise that this isn't spun as "internal AI efficiency gains." They want the efficiency, of course there's AI component, but they're not pre-claiming victory. Neat.
It's worth remembering that there's an _actual_ underlying economic problem here. Interest rates are up. AI spending is expensive. A dollar invested in a company needs to do _more_ than it did 5 years ago, relative to sitting in treasury bills. And Meta isn't delivering on that right now.
But IMHO: that's no excuse. This is admitting defeat, deciding to push the share price higher while they give up. Meta has the user data, the AI ambitions, the distribution, and the brand.
They could do anything, and the world is re-inventing itself. They're ... laying off people, maximizing profits, and giving up.
why do we feel that way? it's becoming more and more likely that developments in AI lead to a K graph in experience / value - senior / self sufficient workers will be significantly more valuable than ever.
unless you mean that the quality of domestic workers is declining, which i'd agree in most things (tho for some things like software i think still has a chance)
I don't think the quality of US workers has to decline. The quality of workers in lower CoL places like India simply has to increase, and it has. Both of the companies I've worked for have opened India campuses in the past few years.
I hire for such companies and the quality of US workers vs foreign workers who move here on visas is much different. To be fair, foreign workers who move here on visas tend to be the rich and highly educated of their own country and US workers are more distributed across SES. They also have more education on paper bc they usually need a masters or more to be eligible to work here
The compensation of software tech (especially Silicon Valley) has also gotten much higher over the past number of years in the US compared to disciplines requiring the same level of education/experience both is the US and even Western Europe. I expect this will equalize with outsized tech salaries becoming a thing of the past except for a few individuals with proven track records.
I mean, the same can be said for consulting salaries, HFT salaries, hedge fund salaries, etc., which similar to software engineering only require a bachelor's and have a similarly grueling interview process.
Why would this equalize? As long as software companies make huge profits and have growth capability which the top ones clearly do, what change would make this happen?
Some software companies are making huge profits today. Many software jobs are at companies making returns comparable to other engineering job profits. There's also a supply side. If the market is flooded with a lot of people in it mostly for the money, salaries will supposedly shrink.
we've seen that most of the people who are only in it for the money don't actually bring much value to the company. a lot of middling software engineers are actually a liability. unlike operational work, engineering needs to have a higher bar than just a beating heart and hands
Too simplistic of a hot take. People have families and other reasons _not_ to emigrate. I also know people who moved to big tech companies in the states, worked there for a number of years and then went back home to “emerging countries” to be closer to their roots.
American workers got uppity. Forgot their place. Started protesting company decisions and wouldn't return to office. Hiring may eventually come back but not any time soon. Workers need to be chastised first.
>it's becoming more and more likely that developments in AI lead to a K graph in experience / value - senior / self sufficient workers will be significantly more valuable than ever.
I don't buy this at all, this narrative feels like pure cope to me. The skill ceiling for working with AI tooling is not that high (far lower than when everyone had to write all their code by hand, unquestionably). To me it seems far more likely that software engineering will become commoditized.
I'm sure everyone posting about the supposed K graph believes that they're on the valuable side of it, naturally.
I’m curious why this meme is so sticky. In the early 2000s people were also panicking that all the software jobs were going to India and never coming back. It was so pervasive it made the cover of Wired magazine, but it never happened. Why is this time different?
Maybe it did happen, but the expansion of broadband internet, and then mobile broadband internet, caused an enormous demand for additional and different types of programmers that was unable to be satiated by people outside of the US.
Sure, but there's no getting around how terrible it is to communicate and coordinate between PST and IST. One of the divisions I currently work with operates in a model where the "drivers" are all in the US and there's a large IST-based team that "executes". It's ... not great, and nobody on either side of the equation likes it. And all the people involved are very smart! But it really does matter, and we're seeing a lot of things move far slower than initially thought.
Why are people so focused on India when it comes to outsourcing?
US dev salaries are so much higher than the rest of the world that basically you could hire anywhere in Europe and still save most of the cost per person.
You could go to LATAM if you want the same timezone.
On the corollary, salaries of capable Indian developers have certainly caught up to most Western countries, so that you wont be saving much per person.
The reason it never happened wasn't that MANY jobs went off-shore (they did) but that the pace of this paled in comparison to number of new jobs that were opening up on-shore. Now that we are seeing demand stall on-shore this is going to hit the front more-so than before. Many layoff news later come with "oh by the way, we also hired x,xxx people off-shore. I think has generally been overblown but I think it is a thing if someone actually wanted to run "America First" campaign and actually mean it, to outlaw or make off-shore development cost-prohibitive. I work on a project in a company that employs now about 1k people and over 40% of that workforce is off-shore. Just about every colleague I have (DC metro area) that works at another joint is in the same spot (or much worse, like CGI etc which doesn't even have developers on-shore anymore...)
It "never happened" only in aggregate, which is sometimes irrelevant and always hard to see for an individual employee who's worried about their individual career. IBM had 150,000 US employees in 2000 and 50,000 today.
Meta has done several rounds of such layoffs since the post COVID interest rate hikes and they do not have a larger employee presence abroad since then.
They also, unlike a lot of their cohorts in FAANG, don't have a significant engineering presence in India and it hasn't rapidly grown since COVID either.
Offshoring has been a common practice for decades, it works great for some functions and not great for others. Why would it suddenly have a massive uptick in 2027?
Not buying it personally, I think this is the start of a slow unwinding.
AI won't replace everybody overnight, but it'll make 10% layoffs year after year a real possibility.
Either people are simply made redundant because bots in the hand of a bot wrangler can do much of their work, or people are relatively less efficient than their peers because they refuse to adapt to a world where AI is a force multiplier.
Also doesn't help that nobody can say how many people it needed to develop and maintain software even before AI. Elon declared the emperor had no clothes.
He really didn’t tho. X was constantly breaking and falling apart in his hands, so he repackaged it in xAI where he got a bunch of money to hire a bunch of engineers to develop features and keep it running. It’s still not profitable. But people have no critical thinking skills so they haven’t noticed this
I'd argue Twitter not breaking down after layoffs is good for the industry. It means you can roughly see investment in software as capex - once it's built, it's built.
You still need engineers to innovate though, but industry has no idea what innovation still makes sense except, maybe, AI. That's why everyone is investing in it, there are just not many other places to invest.
Did he really? X is constantly more buggy than Twitter ever was.
Right now they have a bug where post appears duplicated as a reply to itself (you can tell it's a bug because liking one automatically likes the other).
Not going to argue about what will or will not happen (predictions are hard, especially about the future), but you absolutely don't need AI to explain layoffs at Meta. On one hand they have a failed investment in Metaverse and an underwhelming attempt to participate in AI race. On the other hand they have a stable advertising business that doesn't need much innovation, but can always benefit from some cost cutting
They obviously biffed it by hiring for a bad moonshot when the pandemic money printers were turned on, and now they have plenty of belt tightening to do.
The obvious problem is that you can't run a consumer economy without consumers. No one cares about warehouse robots if no one has the income to buy what's in the warehouses.
For "no one" substitute "more and more of the working population."
I suspect oligarchs believe they can automate their way out of this. The little people will be surplus to requirements, and measures will be taken to eliminate most of us in due course.
But the manufacture of everything is both global and industrial. You need to run things at a certain scale.
Even if we had AGI tomorrow there's still a huge gap between where we are today and a hypothetical low-population global post-AGI robot economy.
And if burn through that straight into ASI no one knows - or likely can even imagine - what that would look like.
but why rehire at all? if AI is even half as competent as they say it is, then they don't need all those employees. Afterall, some of the latest models are passing the GDPW benchmark with flying colors. wouldn't it make sense to just keep laying off more and more and replacing it all with AI?
I think there's a big disconnect between how competent the AI crowd says it is vs reality.
It depends what your company does. In my case we are double our output and probably will be triple by summer. We are building new adjacent products and more complex features. Smoking our competition. So they better keep up or we will eat them. We let go of one person in the fall who just couldn't work this new way. Our head count is going to stay the same or go up by one more hire in the next few months. We are a dev/qa team of five people now, do billing systems...
Then within few years, when the amount of bugs in quickly produced software skyrockets and it will be extremely hard to debug that code by hand, market will change again. These llms will find their solid place but not at current projection/investment wishful thinking. And definitely not for software that is continuously developed, changed and fixed for decades (which is default for most corporate apps, be them internal or vendor ones).
Could probably replace fair few of executives and higher management tho, why pay sycophants six figures when all you need is LLM sub
Now capital can flow towards AI - I'm sure the reason why engineers at Boeing or GM don't make the same money as software devs do is that their industries are otherwise capital intensive, among other things.
> If America’s so rich how’d it get so sad
> https://www.derekthompson.org/p/if-americas-so-rich-howd-it-...
"It buys a WaveRunner. You ever seen a sad person on a WaveRunner?"
https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/does-money-buy-h...
There are exceptions of course. Some people are just predisposed to being unhappy no matter the circumstances, but generally speaking more money directly correlates to increased life contentment.
The article even ends with this quote from one of the authors of the study (emphasis added):
“Money is not the secret to happiness, but it can probably help a bit.”
Exactly. There are other things you can do to be happy and some personalities are simply miserable, but there's nobody who's better off with less money. I'd be curious to see if this holds in societies with better social safety nets for whom money isn't as directly tied to survival or options in how to live.
It buys actual non-hypothetical liberty, as in greater choice to do what you like with your time and your self. It relieves one from unpleasant but necessary tasks (by paying someone else to do them).
The average American ain’t doing very well by OECD standards… literally bottom of the ladder.
The fact that we are entertaining 50 year mortgages as a "solution" further adds insult to injury.
Nobody talks about how the "cure" was worse than the disease in 2020. Happiness matters and is worth dying for.
But honestly, IMO America has become a joyless, directionless dystopia of soma and bread and circuses in the middle of a geopolitical knife fight to define the 21st century and maybe even hit the singularity. I'm not happy with the current management, but it was the same unhappy bunch talked about here that decided by voting or opting not to vote that gave it a second shot. Kinda deserve this, no? If no, I'm all ears for your one weird trick to fix America, go for it!
Yeah I know, downvotes incoming for such heresy. If you don't pick a side, then what are you even doing?
It absolutely destroyed a ton of very good things, perhaps forever.
Single-use zoning makes it illegal to build the places people want to go within walking distance of where they live, so we spend trillions over decades building car infrastructure to allow people to commute. Of course the consequences of commuting by car is more pollution and less exercise, again causing health issues.
The average house price in my country is now 400k eurodollars. And banks keep giving out loans.
AGI has been achieved internally once again at Meta.
Care to elaborate on how you came to this conclusion?
It means layoffs with AI, with the smokescreen of "abundance".
I won't be surprised if that's one of the use cases in their mind.
6-7 38* minute interviews, while the interviewee is trying to squeeze in showcasing their skills and experience, the interviewer is obsessed with figuring out a rigid set of pre-determined "signals"
Once these candidates actually start work, their success in the team is a complete coinflip
* 38 minutes = 45 minute scheduled - 2 minute intro - 5 minute saved for candidate questions at the end
My intervews were in 20202/2021. Perhaps things have changed?
That SNL skit never happened, but the market was so hot it could have.
A sample size of one but many anecdotes together can make a trend.
If you ask my blue collar friends, the answer is one and however long it takes to drink three beers.
If you ask any married person, the onboarding process (courtship) may last YEARS and consist of many interviews (dates).
As an EM, ive always struggled with this one. Im about to invest some serious coin and brainspace for you, so I tended towards a max of 3-6 total hours and a takehome assignment.
As an IC, I preferred short and sweet. Heres my portfolio (github), heres my resume. Lets make this work. Maybe 1-2 hours; its not like we're getting married.
The happy place has to be in there somewhere. Whats your take?
The latter are pretty grueling, especially when conducted on-site. Apple recommends you show up 1-2 hours ahead so you have enough time to get through security, for example.
I just eject from the interview process when I hear it's going to be so many rounds because I know there will be another company that's just as good that will get it done with less.
Didn’t get the job. Got the vibe they were full of crap anyway. The salary range was never given. The business model, extremely easy to replicate.
The job I’m at now had a single 30 minute chat. Verbal offer 2 days later. And my co workers and boss are awesome.
Rigorous formal education, multiple rigorous exams, then years of shadowing and training. I went through this process, and tech interviews are a breeze by comparison.
Software development is neither exhaustively certified, nor narrow, nor perfectly transposable.
Developers want a 15 minutes interview, but also scream "Would you ask a builder if he has experience with blue hammers specifically?" when they get denied an interview because they do not have experience with the exact tech stack of a company.
Because that's how pilots and doctors work. They not only need to have experience with a blue hammer specifically, but it needs to be exact same make and model.
Imagine if a GP claimed to be neurosurgeon because they cured a headache. Developers get to call themselves fullstack the day they modify an API route.
The person who is the most important to you on the worst day of your life is the emt. The interview was literally "do you have a drivers license, and are you grossed out by stuff?" The rest you learned on the job.
Weird how doctors are vetted but prehospital folk are not.
edit yes there is training, but it happens after hire
The reason why EMT have such hiring practices are because many people can do the job, and there are many willing to do it.
It’s not weird if you think of in market terms.
Blood test, background check including all prior training records that are reported to the FAA.
Not a lot of work for the candidate in the interview, but it's easy to fail one too many training events or accumulate a violation and become radioactive.
If the interview is for becoming a partner at a practice, it's a two way courtship that's more reminiscent of other businesses looking for a co-owner.
Doctors also tend to hear about each other. Even in decent sized metro areas, they can often know who to avoid.
(This process isn't perfect, but it's still way different than for software.)
It worked very well for us, I was a bit surprised with some of the red flags that showed up that I wouldn't have expected to be caught in the hiring rounds done at previous jobs.
What I don’t like about them is how “dry” and mechanical the interview feels
The interviewer was also very hard for me to understand, which made the interview harder than it should have been.
I am ESL too, so this is not about someone’s background. The problem is communication in an interview where both sides need to understand each other clearly.
From what I have seen on Blind, others have had similar experiences.
It's worth remembering that there's an _actual_ underlying economic problem here. Interest rates are up. AI spending is expensive. A dollar invested in a company needs to do _more_ than it did 5 years ago, relative to sitting in treasury bills. And Meta isn't delivering on that right now.
But IMHO: that's no excuse. This is admitting defeat, deciding to push the share price higher while they give up. Meta has the user data, the AI ambitions, the distribution, and the brand.
They could do anything, and the world is re-inventing itself. They're ... laying off people, maximizing profits, and giving up.
Cowards.
The domestic jobs aren't coming back.
Seen in foreign workers remote driving ai cars, foreign workers training ai robots, etc etc
unless you mean that the quality of domestic workers is declining, which i'd agree in most things (tho for some things like software i think still has a chance)
Why would this equalize? As long as software companies make huge profits and have growth capability which the top ones clearly do, what change would make this happen?
I don't buy this at all, this narrative feels like pure cope to me. The skill ceiling for working with AI tooling is not that high (far lower than when everyone had to write all their code by hand, unquestionably). To me it seems far more likely that software engineering will become commoditized.
I'm sure everyone posting about the supposed K graph believes that they're on the valuable side of it, naturally.
US dev salaries are so much higher than the rest of the world that basically you could hire anywhere in Europe and still save most of the cost per person.
You could go to LATAM if you want the same timezone.
On the corollary, salaries of capable Indian developers have certainly caught up to most Western countries, so that you wont be saving much per person.
The humiliation of all of the disastrous failures has been lost to history and PMC are once again bullish about their cost cutting genius.
They also, unlike a lot of their cohorts in FAANG, don't have a significant engineering presence in India and it hasn't rapidly grown since COVID either.
AI won't replace everybody overnight, but it'll make 10% layoffs year after year a real possibility.
Either people are simply made redundant because bots in the hand of a bot wrangler can do much of their work, or people are relatively less efficient than their peers because they refuse to adapt to a world where AI is a force multiplier.
You still need engineers to innovate though, but industry has no idea what innovation still makes sense except, maybe, AI. That's why everyone is investing in it, there are just not many other places to invest.
Right now they have a bug where post appears duplicated as a reply to itself (you can tell it's a bug because liking one automatically likes the other).
They obviously biffed it by hiring for a bad moonshot when the pandemic money printers were turned on, and now they have plenty of belt tightening to do.
For "no one" substitute "more and more of the working population."
I suspect oligarchs believe they can automate their way out of this. The little people will be surplus to requirements, and measures will be taken to eliminate most of us in due course.
But the manufacture of everything is both global and industrial. You need to run things at a certain scale.
Even if we had AGI tomorrow there's still a huge gap between where we are today and a hypothetical low-population global post-AGI robot economy.
And if burn through that straight into ASI no one knows - or likely can even imagine - what that would look like.
I think there's a big disconnect between how competent the AI crowd says it is vs reality.