Meta does this. Guess what one of the criteria for their recent layoffs was.

Aurornis an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Do you have any source for this at all? I’ve seen so many different exonerations for Meta’s layoff criteria including claims that engineers using the most AI were laid off because Meta had them build AI tools to replace themselves.

Everyone is oddly confident despite all of the conflicting explanations.

	▲	loeg 35 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Without any evidence, I would be shocked if performance rating wasn't a factor in the layoffs. But performance rating is not the same thing as AI tool use.

▲

loeg 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Meta tracks token consumption, but has explicitly stated that it is not a primary performance metric. Instead, employees are evaluated on "impact."

▲

KaiserPro an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Indeed, they also said that previous time off for ill health wasn't a reason either.

but looking at the number of people who had taken leave, it suggests otherwise.

	▲	loeg 41 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You can believe whatever conspiracy theories you want, of course, but the most straightforward explanation is that when you lay off X,000 or XX,000 people, some number of them will be on leave.
	▲	an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

hcnews an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Sure, and I have a bridge to sell you. Or alternately refer you to the inevitability of Goodhart's law.