Kamal Ghorui
Aravind Srinivas, CEO of AI startup Perplexity, says job losses because of AI are fine as people hate their jobs anyway.
Aravind Srinivas, the Indian-origin CEO of Perplexity AI, was caught in a major controversy after he defended AI-triggered layoffs and said people do not love their jobs anyway. In a podcast, Srinivas who studied at IIT-Madras and then did his PhD at UC Berkeley, said job losses will open many new doors giving people new opportunities where they get to do what they love. “The reality is most people don’t enjoy their jobs. There’s suddenly a new possibility… to use these tools, learn them, and start your own mini business… Even if there is temporary job displacement to deal with, that sort of glorious future is what we should look forward to,” Srinivas said, making layoff look desirable. The comment came under intense criticism as social media users called for his deportation. The comment gained significance as Oracle laid off 30,000 people across the world and people are lamenting on social media how they were blindslided and were informed by a 6am email that March 31 was their last day of work after they worked at Oracle for decades. “A man worth millions just told the single mother who lost her job that she should be grateful because now she can start a business using his product and called her unemployment a glorious future,” one commenter wrote on X. “This is what happens when you’ve never needed a paycheck to keep the lights on.”Perplexity reacted to the controversy and a spokesperson cited data to the New York Post that defends what Srinivas said. “Since Perplexity launched in December 2022, Americans have filed 16 million new business applications, contributing to the reversal of a 40-year decline and proving yet again that breakthrough technologies don’t eliminate opportunity, they create it,” the spokesperson said. “When you’re at the top building AI, disruption looks like opportunity. For millions of workers facing real uncertainty, the view from the ground is very different. Are these artificial tech leaders — prognosticating grand futures for humans while detached from everyday impacts — out of touch? Or are they seeing something others are yet to confront?” one wrote.
