nutanc

For the people who have been laid off, I think the letter by Jack is a disservice. So I crafted a more direct letter. Hope future letters follow this approach.

Today we are making one of the hardest decisions in the history of our company: we are reducing our organization by nearly half, from over 10,000 people to just under 6,000. This means over 4,000 of you will be leaving the company.

I want to be incredibly direct with you about why this is happening.

The Reality of the Decision

First, let’s be clear: you are not being replaced by AI. The technology is not better than you, and it didn't "outwork" you. The truth is simpler and more frustrating: we planned a specific strategic direction, and it didn't work out. We over-extended, and we now need to course-correct to keep the business viable.

However, we operate in a market that demands a specific kind of "success" story. If we simply announced that we missed our targets and need to cut costs, the market would react with volatility, punishing our valuation and jeopardizing our remaining operations.

The "AI-Enabled" Narrative

To protect the company’s standing, we are framing this transition as an evolution into an AI-enabled organization. By attributing these cuts to the "unprecedented efficiency" of intelligence tools and flatter team structures, we signal to the market that we are cutting losses not out of failure, but out of a futuristic lean toward profitability.

This is a strategic "win-win" for the company’s narrative and its shareholders. It allows us to cut costs while being perceived as an industry leader in the AI revolution.

I recognize, however, that this is not a win for you. It is a bitter irony that we are using a narrative of "technological replacement" to mask a human-led planning error.

Support for Departing Team Members

Because this decision is a result of our planning—not your performance—we are providing the following transition package:

Salary: 20 weeks + 1 week per year of tenure.

Equity: Vested through the end of May.

Healthcare: 6 months of continued coverage.

Hardware: You may keep your corporate devices.

Stipend: $5,000 USD (or local equivalent) for your transition.

Closing Thoughts

To those leaving: I am deeply sorry. You built this company, and you remain world-class talent. Any organization would be lucky to have you, and I hate that the "market-friendly" version of this story implies otherwise. To those staying: We are going to "own" this AI-first identity moving forward. It is the core of how we will talk to our customers and our investors from this moment on. We will build with "intelligence" at the center, because that is the future the market has decided to reward.

We have created a product which is an interactive textbook for math. It covers the CBSE curriculum in India. The idea being that in this day and age why should students read from static textbooks and digital textbooks should mean much more than PDF links. Now that we have all the content we have to make a choice. Should we go the Khan Academy route and become a non profit(Highest impact). Or go the startup route and charge a subscription fee etc. We are leaning towards a non profit as most students and parents want exam tech(tech which will help them in their exams) and actually are not too interested in actually learning. Getting them to pay might be a big effort. We dont want to become yet another byjys etc.

In this age of AI, with respect to copyright, looks like AI has more freedoms than humans. Sites like Anna's Archive, the PirateBay etc are blocked for humans(in India for example) and if you download and read a book, its called piracy. But if the same book is fed to an AI for training, apparently its fine and dandy. So Artificial Intelligence has more freedoms than Actual Intelligence?