David Sacks

He made three points.

AI won't eliminate 25% of jobs.

It's gonna automate 25% of work hours, and workers will fill that time with higher level tasks.

Obviously, that didn't happen in the case of Zuckerberg's layoffs.

Just because a job can be replaced doesn't mean it will be.

Bank tellers increased after ATMs, live entertainment became more popular after TV, and the US labor market creates and destroys 25 to 35 million jobs annually, and the gross churn dwarfs net losses.

New categories like agentic AI management are already hiring, yada, yada, yada.

A publication called Fortune is apparently still publishing AI slop, and they say both Sam Wattman and Dario have walked back their AI job apocalypse predictions as they gear up for an IPO.

Sachs, have at it.

You know, you've been saying, and your prediction was you took the other side, hey, we're going to create more jobs.

There was a

A recent, one of the job boards put out some stats that the number of software jobs is going up, the number of listings of other jobs going down.

So I guess you're probably in the camp of creative destruction and churn at this point, Sax?

Well, I mean, I think you should be giving me more credit than that because my most contrarian take back in January on our prediction show is that AI would lead to job gains, not job loss.

And over the past week, you've now seen the narrative shift

I'd say almost completely towards that position.

So you have the CEO of Goldman Sachs writing this in the New York Times.

You know, I don't think he'd be doing that if he felt like he was completely stepping out on a limb.

Maybe even more importantly, you had Sam and even Dario now walking back their claims of massive job loss.

And they explained why Dario said it's kind of like the 25% of work hours thing he said.