Singh switched his one-on-one meetings with his seven direct reports from weekly to every other week. In between, he communicated asynchronously using his AI agents, bots that don’t need human intervention to execute tasks, that connected with his direct reports’ agents to collect updates and provide feedback, he said. While the strategy seemed to work for his team, he could see the risks of relying on AI to replace human interaction. … Though he hadn’t witnessed it yet, he could see a future in which managers, under increasing pressure, are tempted to use AI for decisions and blindly submit flawed suggestions. That could compound as other teams build on top of those decisions and could lead to data leaks, security holes or even system outages, he said.

The article isn’t wrong. Tech CEOs want to eventually just tell an AI to run their company, and for it to be automation all the way down, so that the capture the entire value production vertical. The problems noted above - poor decision making, lack of employee direction or development, compounding into larger issues - people like Zuck and Jassy are more than happy to gamble will be magically solved as AI advances.

If that’s the Christmas morning they’re looking forward to, these layoffs are them asking, well, why can’t we open a present or two early?

So I don’t think they have the slightest empathy for what a nightmare this will be for workers, already expected to produce double or triple the output to justify AI costs, and now to do multiple jobs entirely. They can only imagine the shining, glorious future where all friction and cost is gone, and they (and only they) can sit in a room, in a compound surrounded by armed guards and high walls, and passively collect as much value as possible.