Full quote: "Some truth to that. There’s a whole bunch of back office you needed to be public which AI has made a lot more streamlined. Very few engineers or customer-facing sales people impacted by our layoff. And we’ll continue to hire like crazy in those roles — like we did as a startup."
More quotes by him in other comments too:
[1] "Roles are being cut. Whole functions. Who will survive and thrive are anyone who’s building the product to be sold, or anyone who’s selling the product. We and others will hire everyone good we can find for those roles."
[2] "We’ll still be on a roll hiring. Just shifts to focusing on people who either build or sell products. Fewer roles needed to act as scaffolding supporting those functions"
[3] "Agree! Hence we laid off very few software engineers. Very few customer-facing sales people either. But if you don’t think AI changes how SalesOps, for instance, will be done going forward then it probably means you don’t know what SalesOps is."
[4] "We’ll still be hiring at a rapid pace. This isn’t about cutting headcount. It’s about shifting what roles we need. More people building and selling product. Less providing back office functions to support them."
[5] "We’re not slowing down hiring. We’re just shifting for what roles we’re hiring. This isn’t about cutting staff, it’s about changing what roles we need."
Curious what you all think of this, or if this matches what you're hearing/seeing out there? From public forums it seems like quite a few engineering roles were impacted.
Awesome product & team. I remember back in 2016/17 I used it for some fun projects and jumped on calls with the founders to help me with roadblocks or questions I had.
Wouldn’t an obvious way to use the Turing test on any of these LLMs is just ask it questions about things that just happened in the world (or happened recently)?
Knowing their training data is always going to be out of date (at least for now) seems like an obvious method, unless I’m missing something
I mentioned it in another comment, but if this is the case it feels like calling the movement a “great resignation” is a bit misleading, as a more appropriate label would be a “great company switching”
So in this case, instead of a "great resignation" it would be more accurate imply a "great company switching". However, doesn't this scenario assume that there are an abundant supply of "better" jobs just waiting for applicants (that are now able to apply due to remote policies)?
There obviously isn't that yet, so is the assumption that this will follow after many employees resign and force companies to redo their hiring policies?
That I can totally understand. However, if we're looking at the labor market as a whole, people making comfortable tech salaries are definitely outliers. Coupled with the fact that (anecdotally) it seems many of the people who don't want to return to their old jobs (or want to resign) are either in the service industry, or have/had lower paid entry level job salaries, I'm still stuck trying to understand how these folks will survive financially.
I guess I'm trying to figure out if all these "great resignation" articles are referring to high paid skilled jobs (eg tech workers), which in my opinion wouldn't effect the economy as a whole very much since they are a relatively small portion of it, or if these articles are referring to the broad economy including lower paid jobs.
I feel like I keep seeing articles on this topic, but nobody is addressing the (obvious) elephant in the room: If there is a great resignation, and people are quitting jobs they are not happy with - how are they going to pay their bills and way through life? Am I missing something?
It seems these articles all talk about workers realizing they are underpaid, overworked, and after a year don't want to go back to the same exploitive job. While I completely agree with all this, it doesn't address the question of how these newly unemployed workers will pay their bills and way through life
Are people just counting on their savings? If so, how many people can realistically live out of their savings (esp with rising costs of goods)? Do people think the extended unemployment benefits are going to continue for longer (this seems wildly unrealistic)?
I'm genuinely curious if there are answers to these questions? From my point of view, it seems these articles never mention the fact that people have jobs they don't like, because they have to in order to earn money (in normal non-pandemic times)
More quotes by him in other comments too:
[1] "Roles are being cut. Whole functions. Who will survive and thrive are anyone who’s building the product to be sold, or anyone who’s selling the product. We and others will hire everyone good we can find for those roles."
[2] "We’ll still be on a roll hiring. Just shifts to focusing on people who either build or sell products. Fewer roles needed to act as scaffolding supporting those functions"
[3] "Agree! Hence we laid off very few software engineers. Very few customer-facing sales people either. But if you don’t think AI changes how SalesOps, for instance, will be done going forward then it probably means you don’t know what SalesOps is."
[4] "We’ll still be hiring at a rapid pace. This isn’t about cutting headcount. It’s about shifting what roles we need. More people building and selling product. Less providing back office functions to support them."
[5] "We’re not slowing down hiring. We’re just shifting for what roles we’re hiring. This isn’t about cutting staff, it’s about changing what roles we need."
[1]- https://xcancel.com/eastdakota/status/2052598611679097040#m [2]- https://xcancel.com/eastdakota/status/2052559855274144039#m [3]- https://xcancel.com/eastdakota/status/2052560831909433554#m [4]- https://xcancel.com/eastdakota/status/2052557234182172932#m [5]- https://xcancel.com/eastdakota/status/2052557696650428882#m [6]- https://xcancel.com/eastdakota/status/2052561977080205637#m
Curious what you all think of this, or if this matches what you're hearing/seeing out there? From public forums it seems like quite a few engineering roles were impacted.