M
@MihaylovVelizar
Can't, they just ask ChatGPT to create a better model than Claude and call it a day.
99
1
6.6K
@TukiFromKLposted on X
🚨 Do you understand what just happened at OpenAI.. on January 26.. Sam Altman told his own employees "we are planning to dramatically slow down hiring.. we think we'll be able to do so much more with fewer people".. that was 54 days ago.. today OpenAI announced they're nearly doubling their workforce.. 4,500 to 8,000.. by end of year.. the same man telling you that AI replaces workers.. just announced hiring 3,500 more humans because AI couldn't replace his.. so either the AI isn't good enough to do the work.. or Anthropic scared them so bad they threw the whole playbook out the window.. both answers are embarrassing.. but only one of them is true.. and Sam knows which one.
View original tweet on X →
Community Sentiment Analysis
Real-time analysis of public opinion and engagement
Sentiment Distribution
70% Engaged
46% Positive
24% Negative
Positive
46%
Negative
24%
Neutral
30%
Key Takeaways
What the community is saying — both sides
Supporting
1
54 days from “do more with fewer” to hiring 3,500
reads as public hypocrisy — critics call it an embarrassingly fast reversal that undercuts the original claim.
2
Anthropic forced the pivot
many argue this isn’t failure so much as competitive pressure: OpenAI had to scale people fast because a rival is shipping features and market share.
3
AI is overhyped
a large group says capabilities are exaggerated and current models can’t replace knowledge workers the way demos imply.
4
Building and operating AI needs humans
replies note engineering, tagging, ops, safety and product work multiply headcount even as the tech promises automation.
5
Defensive hiring / talent denial
some view the spree as strategic: hire to keep talent away from competitors rather than an admission of tech limits.
6
PR, investor and recruiting theater
skeptics see messaging swings as market management: slow-hire rhetoric for optics, then a recruiting push to satisfy investors or growth targets.
7
“Fire then rehire” suspicion
a common theory is AI became an excuse to cut certain roles, then rehire cheaper or differently skilled workers to do the real work.
8
Leadership distrust and moral criticism
a vocal subset attacks Sam Altman personally, accusing dishonesty, bad governance or profiteering from fear narratives.
9
Augment not replace
a constructive strand argues the smart play is to use AI to boost human teams: scale through augmentation rather than touting outright elimination of jobs.
Opposing
1
AI creates new complexity that requires more humans
many replies argue AI both automates tasks and spawns new work (ops, monitoring, productization), so hiring rises to manage that added complexity.
2
It’s an arms race/panic move
competitor advances (Claude/Opus) forced OpenAI to “throw bodies at the problem,” framing the hiring as escalation rather than a calm growth plan.
3
Build-phase vs end state: hire now to automate later
labs hire aggressively during the R&D phase to accelerate development toward eventual automation; short-term headcount growth doesn’t negate long-term automation goals.
4
Demand-driven scaling, not contradiction
explosive demand, new customers and productization bottlenecks can justify hiring even if AI raises per‑person productivity.
5
Funding and strategy enable rapid hiring
big investments ($100B cited) and strategic aims (onboarding enterprises, expanding ecosystems) make large hiring sprees financially and operationally feasible.
6
Talent-starvation as a tactic
some see hires as a competitive strategy to deplete the talent pool and constrain rivals.
7
Disagreement on long-term job impact — apocalyptic view
a subset warns that AI/robots will replace essentially all jobs within a few years and that hiring now is short‑lived.
8
Disagreement on long-term job impact — augmentation view
others insist AI will mostly amplify humans, replacing routine roles but increasing demand for high-leverage talent and specialist roles.
9
Specific operational drivers
replies point to concrete reasons for hires: robotics and manufacturing work, government contracts, enterprise demos, infra/distribution and bespoke product needs.
10
Some responses are ad‑hominem or dismissive
a number of replies abandon substantive debate in favor of insults, trolling or accusations of hypocrisy.
Top Reactions
Most popular replies, ranked by engagement
K
@Kneon
AI is an excuse to fire certain employees and then rehire better and/or cheaper ones IMHO.
86
2
761
L
@LeCodeBusiness
The third option nobody mentions: both can be true. AI replaces certain tasks but creates enough new complexity that you need more humans to manage the systems. That's not a contradiction, that's how every major technology wave has played out historically.
37
5
6.3K
C
@chatgpt21
ee a new paradigm and want humans to accelerate it. Or maybe they need humans to demo a new robot they’re working on to enterprise. How is digital ai supposed to do that? Maybe they’re hiring robotic engineers? Why are you so disingenuous when you have no idea what they’re hir
22
1
746
V
@vlelyavin
54 days from "we'll do more with fewer people" to "we need 3,500 more people" is the fastest pivot since "we're a nonprofit"
20
0
1.3K
T
@TheLeroyStone
I really wish American companies would stop thinking of AI as a human replacement tool. Augment your best people. Grow. Force multiply. If you’re trying to replace humans with LLMs you’re a moron and deserve to go bankrupt.
6
0
217
Report an Issue
Found something wrong with this article? Let us know and we'll look into it.