451–460 of 506 posts
Lots of companies spun up giant AI teams over the last 48 months. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if 50+% of these roles are eliminated in the next 48 months. The AI party is coming to an end. Those without clear ROI are ripe for the chopping block.
Well, the told us from the beginning that AI would make many developer jobs redundant, didn’t they?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My leadership is currently promoting "better to ask forgiveness", or put another way: "a bias towards action" lol, that works well until a big issue occurs in production
But then it also works. Managers can scapegoat engineer who is asking for forgiveness. It's a total win for the management: they take credits if initiative is successful but blame someone else for failure.
Meta will shortly post for 700 new AI roles
the whole premise is stupid and should be disregarded. still too enticing to turn down for stability.
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2025/06/27/meta-is-offering-multimill...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm seeing a lot of frustration at the leadership level about product velocity- and much of the frustration is pointed at internal gatekeepers who mainly seem to say no to product releases. My leadership is currently promoting "better to ask forgiveness", or put another way: "a bias towards action". There are definitely limits on this, but it's been helpful when dealing with various internal negotiations. I don't spe…
Big tech is suffering from the incumbents disease. What worked well for extracting profits from stable cash cows doesn't work in fields that are moving rapidly. Google et al. were at one point pinnacle technologies too, but this was 20 years ago. Everyone who knew how to work in that environment has moved on or moved up. Were I the CEO of a company like that I'd reduce headcount in the legacy orgs, transition them to…
Search is not a commodity. Search providers other than Google are only marginally used because Google is so dominant. At the same time, when LLMs companies can start providing a better solution to the actual job of finding answers to user queries, then Google's dominance is disrupted and their future business is no longer guaranteed. Maintaining Google search infra to serve as a search backbone is not big enough for Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what did they do with it for the next five years?
Used it to do things? This seems like a weird question. OpenAI took about the same amount of time to go big as well (Sam was excited about open AI in 2017, but it took 5+ years for it to pan out into something used by people).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Feels like this is the fundamental flaw with a lot of things not just in the private sector, but the public one too. Look at the FDA, where it's notoriously bogged down in red tape, and the incentives slant heavily towards rejection. This makes getting pharmaceuticals out even more expensive, and raises the overall cost of healthcare. It's too easy to say no, and people prioritize CYA over getting things done. The qu…
I take your broader point but personally I feel like it’s ok if the FDA is cautious. The incentives that bias towards rejection may be “not killing people”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They properly fucked FAIR. it was a lead, if not the leading AI lab. then they gave it to Chris Cox, the Midas of shit. It languished in "product" trying to do applied research. The rot had set in by mid 2024 if not earlier. Then someone convinced Zuck that he needed what ever that new kid is, and the rest is history. Meta has too many staff, exceptionally poor leadership, and a performance system that rewards bullsh…
> Meta has too many staff, exceptionally poor leadership, and a performance system that rewards bullshitters. To be fair, almost every company has a performance system that rewards bullshitters. You’re rewarded on your ability to schmooze and talk confidently and write numerous great-sounding docs about all the great things you claim to be doing. This is not unique to one company.
Meta's is uniquely bad.
Basically your superiours all go into a room and argue about who did what, when and how good it was.
If you have a manager who is bad at presenting, then their team is sunk, and will be used to fill quotas. The way out of that is to create workplace posts that are seen by your wider org, that make you look like you're doing something useful. "oh I heard about x, they talked about y, that sounded good"
This means that people who work away and just do good engineering are less likley to be rewarded compared to the #thankstrain twats/"I wrote the post, therefore it was all me me me" types
This alignment meeting is all private, and there are no mechanisms to challenge it. worse still it encourages a patronage system. Your manager has almost complete discretion to fuck up your career, so don't be honest in pulse(the survey/feedback system).