There are so many other factors. Will people be pissed if they expected your output and got AI slop instead? Will you lose context on something that you really need to understand?

There are so many contradictions in this statement that either the person who wrote it is completely muddle-headed, or just a bad liar.

> Nothing about our core business has changed – it remains strong and consistent

a few paragraphs later

> But our transformation is going to take time

and the next paragraph

> At the same time, the market in which we operate has undergone profound change over the last 6 months. We need to adjust our cost structure

So is the business strong and consistent, or is it facing a rapidly-changing market, requiring that the business transform and adjust it's cost structure?

> To be clear about the impact of AI on today’s decision: we are not making the above changes because we believe AI replaces humans.

A few paragraphs later

> AI has fundamentally transformed the tech industry, though, including how we work, how we build products, how we communicate, and more. That does have an impact on how we operate and organize.

So do you think AI doesn't replace humans, or do you think that you'll need fewer humans because AI will be doing more of the work?

If we throw all the arguments at the wall, one must stick right?

I think it's a bit more sinister. If they write everything they can claim later they "considered" it.

AI prompt: “Write a melodramatic layoff announcement that blames our problems on vague market/economic changes, suggests we need to transform, yet reassures investors that business fundamentals are strong.”

Nothing in there contradicts. A business that works well today may not work well tomorrow; it's management's job to change the business to better meet future conditions.

> or do you think that you'll need fewer humans because AI will be doing more of the work?

My bet is this one. To be fair, it isn't exactly an unpopular opinion. If I were starting a business today I'd plan to hire far fewer programmers than I would have just 2-3 years ago.

They quoted text declaring both that things haven't changed, and that things have changed. There is a basic contradiction there.

One which is present in a lot of layoff messages. Things are fine! Don't worry! Half the staff has to go because things aren't fine though.

As long as the leadership of AI companies and the prominent AI researchers are talking about P(doom) and eliminating 50% of white collar jobs, there will be a backlash. As long as the leadership of corporate America is using AI usage in performance metrics and shoving AI into every single product regardless of whether it actually helps the product, there will be a backlash.

If you tell people that there's a technology that's going to change every aspect of their lives whether they like it or not (and has a non-zero chance of ending humanity entirely) and you want to throw all available resources into building this technology as fast as possible, do not be surprised if people start instinctively cringing every time your technology is mentioned.

If Altman, Musk, Zuckerberg, Amodei, or any of these other people had been half as smart as Steve Jobs, they would have adopted his worldview of computing as a "bicycle for the mind" that enhances rather than replaces humans.

Do you consider Frost inaccessible (or for that matter politically-charged)? I think every kid who grows up in New England reads him in elementary or middle school.

I think this is a category error. Homer is the iconic writer of the Ancient Greek language and culture, not the modern nation of Greece. Cervantes and Dante are the iconic writers in the Spanish and Italian languages, respectively, not the nations of Spain or Italy. Italy wouldn't even exist as a nation until 500 years after Dante.

The American equivalent of Homer, Dante, or Cervantes is Shakespeare.