Its all lip service - either AI generated or hand written.
I don't think this is true. Humans typically prefer "thanks for the hard work, here's your severance" to "you suck, here's your severance, loser."
Humans like being treated with respect, and words are a big part of that. Money is nice, but it's not the only thing we care about.
I'm not convinced a polite but AI-written email hits the same note. At the very least it's unintentionally disrespectful, which isn't a direct challenge. Your boss doesn't care enough to write an email by hand, but also doesn't care enough to burn bridges and insult you.
There is ZERO CHANCE they have used ai unintentionally
> also doesn't care enough to burn bridges and insult you.
By actively using ai they are stating that you are so much beyond them that even a personal "eff you" is not worth the time. One would have to actively try and poke some personally hurtful areas to come off more insulting than use of ai.
If you ask AI to generate hundred different paragraphs and choose the one which best conveys what you actually feel and want to communicate.
Is it is still a perfect nothing?
You do get how that's worse, right? The person rather spends their time arguing with the clanker than thinking about the person and putting those thought into words, however unstructured they are.
So essentially you have three choices:
1. Spend time writing (or have written by a copywriter) in corporate fluff dialect, where the actual message is still understandable by all parties. At the cost of appearing tone deaf.
2. Spend time reiterating with a bot that speaks some undefined sub-dialect of LLMinese where the reception of the message is unknown. At the cost of appearing even more tone deaf and insulting than a corporate cog.
3. Spend time restructuring message in genuine voice. At the cost of maybe being heard more harshly than intended.
I fail to see how option 2 can be perceived as anything but the worst, unless you assume that the target audience does not distinguish LLMinese from actual speech.
One group are the ones who are staying. They lose teammates, they have to restructure work and fear whether there will be another round soon, which may hit them.
And then there are customers, investors, ... who need to be assured they are not dealing with a failing company.
Who actually is required?
.. fundamentally, it's only the person collecting payment.
For sure this part screams LLM
Wow. That’s my cue to never use Coinbase again.
"We’re not building Skynet, we’re cutting costs and putting the survivors on prompt duty"
Anything in that format gives that AI feel
Is there a flood of talent leaving after this one? Major breaches? Only time will tell.
Buckle up, and don’t forget your pudding!”
Except for that tone-deaf part at the end, where right after he talks to the people who "will be leaving" (that is, the people getting kicked out), he says that Coinbase will be stronger and healthier for this. Which makes it hard not to draw the conclusion that the people "leaving" are part of the unhealth.
The CEO probably does not even think that, and just wants to reduce costs. But from what was written, the implications are decidecly suboptimal.
But the reality is it is a standard MBA driven "bottom x%" cull dressed up with some 4d chess strategy.