Jason Calacanis

He said it was related to they were trying to balance additional spending capex, but it was not directly related to AI.

But even if it were, even if it were 100% the case that was due to AI, you're not netting those jobs against all the other jobs that are being created because of AI and all the new companies that are being created right now because of AI.

So you're just cherry picking one statistic.

You're attributing 100% of that to AI.

And then you're not basically netting it and presenting a balance you've got.

Zuckerberg said it's AI.

Yes, exactly.

So Jack Dorsey came out and said that he was going to do a 50% elimination because of AI.

Okay.

And within 24 hours, all the financial analysts on X said that Jack was AI washing and that block had horribly overstaffed during COVID.

It was running much more inefficiently than all of its other peers in this category.

And they've needed to do a 50% job cut for a long time.

So pretty much everyone thought that was pure AI washing.

In fact, you've just proven my point.

And what exactly are the efficiencies that Jack is getting?

I mean, this is the most hand wavy thing ever that, oh, we're just magically going to be able to eliminate half our cost structure right now.

Zuck did not say this was due to AI.

He just did it.

That's your reading of it.

But like I said, even if you attribute those specific job losses to AI, which is questionable, you're not netting it against all the job creation that's happening and also the new company creation.