The Companies Cutting Headcount for AI Will Lose to the Ones Who Didn't • Hacker News Board

Re: The Companies Cutting Headcount for AI Will Lose to the Ones Who Didn't

#151

Post by mrcwinn » Fri, May 22, 2026, 2:47 PM UTC

I once was the final step in an interview process. My flag to the team was that this person had been laid off something like four times in a row. I said, layoffs don’t cut the great people, so it says something about the applicant.

The team insisted this person had a big heart, a lot of passion, and they’d make a difference. We extended an offer and they accepted.

They ended up being unremarkable in every way. It was a drag on the company. We let them go a year later and set ourselves back on a topic our customers cared about.

Anyway, some people are great. Some are not. The idea that there’s this hidden special knowledge trapped inside teams, if only the executives would unleash it, is nonsense. I personally feel for anyone who loses their job, but companies will always pick the most productive and efficient path to a result.

Also so does the labor market. How many people, when given the option for more pay and benefits, decline out of loyalty to their employer? At least in tech, this is almost never the case.

I think we’re a bit lost. On one hand, certain people don’t trust these big employers and think they’re evil, and on the other hand really really want their job at said evil megacorp.

Re: The Companies Cutting Headcount for AI Will Lose to the Ones Who Didn't

#152

Post by voncheese » Fri, May 22, 2026, 2:48 PM UTC

ambicapter wrote: post #52

pjmlp wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The major issue, is that once people are more productive with AI, you are able to replace people because less of them are required. You see this in enterprise consulting, wiht the increase in cloud, serverless, SaaS/iPaaS, low code/no code, content generation and translations, followed by AI agent orchestration, the teams can be reduced down to about 1/3 of what they used to be. It isn't as if there are enough projec…

This sounds like an attempt to rationalize the fact that your business isn't that effective, otherwise adding more people would result in making more money. > It isn't as if there are enough projects around to keep the other 2/3 busy I've never worked at any company where there was any limit to the work to be done. Sales people don't give a shit what your product can do, only what they can sell, and they never sleep.

> This sounds like an attempt to rationalize the fact that your business isn't that effective, otherwise adding more people would result in making more money.

Yes, or that businesses are expecting a slow down in the economy that hinders their ability to sell (i.e. their customers are going to cutback on spending)

This was the case last year (or maybe it was the year before) where technology companies saw their customers reducing spend and tightening belts.

The current economy feels hard to figure out, in that the market keeps going up but so is inflation and the struggle of the everyday American at least.

Perhaps that is leading technology companies to be more conservative in how much they produce.

Re: The Companies Cutting Headcount for AI Will Lose to the Ones Who Didn't

#153

Post by TheOtherHobbes » Fri, May 22, 2026, 2:49 PM UTC

mk89 wrote: post #61

ambicapter wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like an attempt to rationalize the fact that your business isn't that effective, otherwise adding more people would result in making more money. > It isn't as if there are enough projects around to keep the other 2/3 busy I've never worked at any company where there was any limit to the work to be done. Sales people don't give a shit what your product can do, only what they can sell, and they never sleep.

>I've never worked at any company where there was any limit to the work to be done. Sales people don't give a shit what your product can do, only what they can sell, and they never sleep. The issue is how much of that work is "valuable" in the sense = makes money. I have both been in projects and seen projects which were canceled once it turned out they didn't make money (bad sales? bad product? bad market fit? a bit…

Predicting which projects will be valuable, directing resources in their direction, and making sure the right people are doing the right work with as few distractions as possible is the definition of high quality management and leadership.

Most managers are mediocre, and many are poor. Some are lucky for one or two projects but can't keep it up consistently.

Companies with a lot of wealth often scattershot random projects - some of which are directly competitive - in the hope that one will stick.

The people who have the insight and intuition to skip this and hit the mark directly are incredibly rare.

A lot of business culture is a set of cargo cult "solutions" that pretend to address this problem.

Re: The Companies Cutting Headcount for AI Will Lose to the Ones Who Didn't

#154

Post by ulfw » Fri, May 22, 2026, 2:51 PM UTC

Forgeties79 wrote: post #119

yojo wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two things: 1) Unlimited PTO is a scam. Ask anyone who ever got paid out six weeks salary when they changed jobs. 2) “the craft” is doing some heavy lifting here. I happen to enjoy AI-assisted dev, but it is nothing like the work that drew me to the industry. Otherwise agreed on all counts.

Unlimited PTO works great for someone like me who regularly takes half day and full day PTO every quarter for various commitments/life stuff. But I’m also a guy and I have no problem asserting myself/spending my benefits. People who are a little less comfortable with that end up just parking on it and would do a lot better if they were given a set number of PTO days. The ambiguity hurts them in the same way not havin…

You take 1.5x4 = 6 days of vacation per YEAR and use this as an argument for... wait... what exactly?

Huh?

Re: The Companies Cutting Headcount for AI Will Lose to the Ones Who Didn't

#155

Post by fendy3002 » Fri, May 22, 2026, 2:54 PM UTC

Curosinono wrote: post #140

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the unfortunate reality is that lots of companies in our industry have suspiciously inflated employee counts in the first place. Even when removing AI and the pandemic over-hiring, I wouldn't have been surprised to see corrections sooner or later. It's funny to me that everyone talks about pandemic over-hiring, as if this hadn't been a thing for a decade before that. Like, when I started at FB in 2013, they…

FB is the weirdest company though. For a lot of companies like gitlab you know they have sales for customers, roadmap for their core product etc. FB has what? Intel has around the same number of people and they make chips, laptops, different types of chips. Hardware, software, supply chain etc. FB does what? And what do they do with all these very well paid people?!

algorithm, tracking, bypassing adblocker, reports, moderation and backoffice tools I think

Re: The Companies Cutting Headcount for AI Will Lose to the Ones Who Didn't

#156

Post by prewett » Fri, May 22, 2026, 2:55 PM UTC

pech0rin wrote: post #65

The misunderstanding is that people equate what these companies are saying and what they are doing. In reality this is the perfect time to fire people under cover. This happens every X years where as leadership you can say this tech is displacing you, when in truth its just that you arent needed anymore. This is a capitalism functioning correctly as labor as in then moved to places it is needed more. Its sort of shoc…

I don't think software was ever sold as a high variance career. Start a startup! was sold that way, particularly by PG's early essays, but not not W2 employment. You do W2 because you want low variance, and you either love software or it pays well. Either way, I don't think most people were okay with terrible outcomes. (I don't think getting laid off is terrible, I think it should be an expected possibility. I've found that contracting/freelance has helped reduce my fear of losing my job, since you expect the job to end when you start it, and since you're regularly looking for a new job, you get a sense of how long it takes.)

Re: The Companies Cutting Headcount for AI Will Lose to the Ones Who Didn't

#157

Post by blktiger » Fri, May 22, 2026, 2:55 PM UTC

Forgeties79 wrote: post #119

yojo wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two things: 1) Unlimited PTO is a scam. Ask anyone who ever got paid out six weeks salary when they changed jobs. 2) “the craft” is doing some heavy lifting here. I happen to enjoy AI-assisted dev, but it is nothing like the work that drew me to the industry. Otherwise agreed on all counts.

Unlimited PTO works great for someone like me who regularly takes half day and full day PTO every quarter for various commitments/life stuff. But I’m also a guy and I have no problem asserting myself/spending my benefits. People who are a little less comfortable with that end up just parking on it and would do a lot better if they were given a set number of PTO days. The ambiguity hurts them in the same way not havin…

At my current job I get 25 days of PTO a year, with a cap of 30 days, plus company holidays (12 or so?), plus 5 days the entire company shuts down. I have to be careful not to hit my cap even taking 4 weeks of vacation because it’s still less than I earn. You have “unlimited” pto and take half of the vacation I do. If you ever change jobs you’ll get $0, while I’ll get a bonus.

Re: The Companies Cutting Headcount for AI Will Lose to the Ones Who Didn't

#158

Post by kakacik » Fri, May 22, 2026, 2:56 PM UTC

Curosinono wrote: post #140

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the unfortunate reality is that lots of companies in our industry have suspiciously inflated employee counts in the first place. Even when removing AI and the pandemic over-hiring, I wouldn't have been surprised to see corrections sooner or later. It's funny to me that everyone talks about pandemic over-hiring, as if this hadn't been a thing for a decade before that. Like, when I started at FB in 2013, they…

FB is the weirdest company though. For a lot of companies like gitlab you know they have sales for customers, roadmap for their core product etc. FB has what? Intel has around the same number of people and they make chips, laptops, different types of chips. Hardware, software, supply chain etc. FB does what? And what do they do with all these very well paid people?!

Well they keep breaking main FB page with additions or redesigns nobody asked for.

I am in Europe but I must be some test bunny that made some personal enemy there somehow, since beginning (cca 2008) FB was by far the buggiest site ever. Uploads of images didn't work, sometimes it uploaded twice. Uploading album of 30-50 pics took on average maybe 10 attempts in the past. Comments didn't work, or twice again. many similar behaviors. Ie since cca 2 weeks now if I click on some picture to have it full screen, clicking close after 1-2 mins ends up in FB error page instead of returning to main feed. I keep seeing FB error page a LOT considering infrequent use.

Horrible, terrible engineering.

Re: The Companies Cutting Headcount for AI Will Lose to the Ones Who Didn't

#159

Post by [deleted] » Fri, May 22, 2026, 2:56 PM UTC

elktown wrote: post #59

I think the unfortunate reality is that lots of companies in our industry have suspiciously inflated employee counts in the first place. Even when removing AI and the pandemic over-hiring, I wouldn't have been surprised to see corrections sooner or later. Employee count seems to correlate to stock market incentives - which is how GitLab is like 5x larger than Valve.

[deleted]

Re: The Companies Cutting Headcount for AI Will Lose to the Ones Who Didn't

#160

Post by Forgeties79 » Fri, May 22, 2026, 2:57 PM UTC

steveBK123 wrote: post #150

yojo wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before unlimited PTO took off, standard in FAANG-like (US) industry was ~12 corp holidays + 15-25 days annual PTO, depending on seniority. I don’t know anyone who takes the high end of that anymore, especially senior/staff folks. Unlimited PTO takes a liability off the company’s books, and makes every time off request a negotiation.

> Unlimited PTO takes a liability off the company’s books, and makes every time off request a negotiation. This is 100% it.

Yeah exactly. For some of us that is not a problem but for most people it seems to create issues. Company culture also plays a huge factor in that. Grey areas tend to hurt employees the most!