At the #FortuneWorkplaceSummit, 15Five CEO @dhassell said annual performance reviews haven’t kept pace with today’s rapidly evolving workplace: "Annual reviews made sense when the world was pretty static and we're at an accelerated pace of technology and change, and the practice just hasn't kept up." https://t.co/ITnN0ONe8Z
@TKKuegler@15Five Hey TK, sorry I'd missed this. I'd love to know the details of what happened here. Would you be willing to send me a DM and share your experience?
I've been personally playing with Claude Code recently and building little niche apps to help manage my life.
I built something over a weekend that will save me 2-3 hours a month, that previously just wouldn't have made any sense to build and maintain from an ROI perspective but now does.
I think what Aaron is sharing is 100% spot on and that we're going to see an explosion of software.
Jevons paradox is happening in real time. Companies, especially outside of tech, are realizing that they can now afford to take on software projects that they wouldn’t have been able to tackle before because now AI lets them do so.
We’re going to start to use software for all new things in the economy because it’s incrementally cheaper to produce. Marketing teams at big companies will have engineers helping to automate workflows. Engineers in life sciences and healthcare will automate research. Small businesses will hire engineers for the first to build better digital experiences.
And as long as AI agents still require a human who understands what to prompt, how to review when an agent goes off the rails, how it guide back, how to maintain the system that was built, how to fix the ongoing bugs, and more, we will still have humans managing these agents.
This is why all the advice you get of not going into engineering is wrong. The world is going to increasingly be made up of software, and the people that understand it best will be in a strong economic position. This will happen in other roles as well where output goes up and demand increases.
Will AI replace people or amplify them?
As a leader you get to choose.
At 15Five we’re choosing the latter and working on building product to support that future.
Jensen Huang just called out every CEO who’s been firing people “because of AI.”
Jim Cramer asked him why companies are laying people off if AI is supposed to make everyone MORE productive.
Jensen's answer:
"For companies with imagination, you will do more with more. For companies where the leadership is just out of ideas, they have nothing else to do. They have no reason to imagine greater than they are. When they have more capability, they don't do more."
Read that again.
The man who built the most important tech company on Earth just told you that if your CEO is using AI to cut headcount, it means one thing:
They have no imagination.
They have no vision for what comes next.
They got handed the most powerful tool in human history and their FIRST instinct was to fire people.
This is the CEO of NVIDIA. The company whose chips power every AI system on the planet.
If anyone on Earth has the right to say "AI replaces workers," it's Jensen Huang.
And he said the OPPOSITE.
He said every carpenter could become an architect. Every plumber could become an architect. AI elevates capability. It doesn't eliminate it.
But here's where it gets really interesting...
During the same interview, Jensen revealed something nobody's talking about:
He said AI startups like OpenAI and Anthropic are seeing their revenues increase by one to two billion dollars a WEEK. And he wishes these companies were public so the world could see what he sees.
One to two billion per week.
That's a $50 to $100 BILLION annualized run rate.
For companies that most people think are burning cash and making nothing.
The entire Wall Street narrative that "AI companies aren't profitable" might be completely wrong.
Jensen sees their numbers. He sees their compute orders. He sees their growth. And he's saying the revenue is real.
So if the money IS real, why are other companies firing people?
Because they're not building AI products. They're not creating new revenue streams. They're not using AI to expand into new markets.
They're using AI as an EXCUSE to cut costs because they ran out of ideas 3 years ago and need something to tell the board.
Jensen's company added $500 billion in new orders in 5 months. He expects $1 trillion in cumulative revenue through 2027 from just two product lines.
That number doesn't include the new chips, systems, or partnerships announced this week.
And he's not cutting people. He's hiring.
Because when you have imagination, more capability means MORE opportunity. Not less headcount.
Meanwhile Salesforce cut thousands. Meta cut thousands. Amazon cut thousands. All blaming "AI efficiency."
Jensen's response: You're out of imagination.
He also said something that stuck with me.
Cramer asked if he ever thought he'd build a $10 to $20 trillion company while waiting tables at Denny's.
His answer: "I was just trying to make it through the shift."
Biggest tip he ever got? Two, three dollars.
Now he's building tech that increased computing demand by one million times in two years.
He announced OpenClaw, which he says is as big as ChatGPT.
And he's got 21 months of new business that isn't even counted in the trillion dollar figure yet.
When asked how long he plans to keep working?
"I'm hoping to die on the job. And I'm not hoping to die anytime soon."
This is a man who believes every single thing he's building.
And his message to every CEO using AI to justify layoffs is simple...
You're not innovating. You're surrendering.
The technology wasn't built to shrink companies.
It was built to make them limitless.
If your leadership can't see that, the problem isn't AI.
It's THEM.
What a fantastically well-written and coherent rebuttal! Related: every technological wave predicted that humans would end up working less and end up havin loads of free time, but it’s always been the opposite. Why? Because the human hunger to do and create doesn’t go away - it just gets upleveled to the next higher order bit.
@Jason@VailResorts I only get a 5-day pass for our annual Telluride trip, so haven't had much of an issue -- otherwise IKON Pass -- much better mountains in the West IMO!
Completely different. My son has done the Synthesis summer camps and their awesome math tutor, but will be attending the brand new Alpha Phoenix starting in August.
If you want to get a taste of how incredible this model is, check out some of the student interviews on @makenzieprice’s Instagram here: https://t.co/vdkXdoDtJL
@iam_preethi 100% agree! And at the same time it’s also a great idea to go have a bunch of life experiences first that are a bit more challenging to go do once you entered the realm of parenthood.
I think you made a reasonable assumption that the debt would no longer be your responsibility and appreciate you sharing this lesson so others can learn.
I also wonder if it would have been flagged if you had better legal/tax representation at the time of sale.
Lastly is there really nothing that can be doing at the level of Chase or the credit reporting agencies given the documents they started they were assuming the debt??
I like a lot of your takes but I just watched this start to finish and have to disagree.
I thought Zelensky’s question about why he should trust diplomacy based on past experience was perfectly valid and it was JD who over reacted and escalated, leading to all three of them (Zelensky, JD and Trump) ratcheting up and getting triggered and heated.
Zelensky could potentially have used different language than “what kind of diplomacy do you mean?” and instead said “diplomacy didn’t work in the past so why do you think it would work now?” Maybe that wording got under JD’s skin, but that was still the gist of the point Zelensky was rightfully trying to make.
I’m curious if you watch that moment again if you’d have a different take.
AZ resident here.
1) Why do you not consider this a “real” Public Health solution?
2) What “real” Public Health solutions are you referring to?
3) If these junk foods are proven to cause obesity, diabetes and poor long term public health outcomes (which negatively burdens public health and our taxpayer dollars) why should taxpayers favor using those dollars to fund these purchases? How does this limit personal freedom? People can still use their own money to make less nutritious choices - they’re not banned from buying these items, correct?