Skip to content
You can now search across every topic, entity and event.What's new
AI: Jobs, Power & Money
23APR

Snap cuts 16%, AI writes the code

4 min read
14:51UTC

Snap told staff on 15 April it would cut 1,000 jobs and close over 300 open roles, with external reporting that AI now generates more than 65% of new code.

← Back to Meta codes its own org chartJump to analysis ↓
EconomicDeveloping
Key takeaway

Snap puts the code-generation rate into public currency; rivals will either match the disclosure or duck it.

snap inc. told staff on 15 April it would cut roughly 1,000 employees, about 16% of its full-time workforce, and close more than 300 open roles, with savings targeted at over $500m annualised by the second half of 2026 1. CEO Evan Spiegel framed the plan around 'small squads leveraging AI tools'. Snap is the company behind Snapchat, the US camera and social app headquartered in Santa Monica. The stock rose between 6% and 9% on the news, despite the scale of the cut.

External reporting by The Information added the figure Spiegel did not put in the official release: AI now generates more than 65% of new code at Snap 2. Cutting 16% of headcount against a code base where two-thirds of new lines are machine-written is not a cost decision dressed as strategy. It is the mechanical consequence of a throughput shift The Firm has already absorbed inside its engineering pipeline.

Salesforce had already taken support staff from 9,000 to 5,000 using AI agents without replacing a single engineer ; Snap is the first social-media company to put an engineering-throughput ratio on that mechanism. The 300+ closed open roles are the more telling number of the two. They never register in any cut count, yet they are exactly the vacancies the Stanford hires-not-made analysis showed compounding at population scale. Challenger's running tally of US AI-attributed cuts had already crossed 107,094 in early April ; Snap adds another line item while publishing the productivity ratio that made it possible.

The 65% number is the figure rival ad-tech and social engineering teams will be benchmarked against. A firm disclosing that ratio publicly is also publishing the lever against which its own future headcount can be calculated by its competitors. Whether Meta, X and Pinterest match the disclosure at their next earnings will show whether Snap has set a standard or drawn a line competitors refuse to cross.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

IBM has an internal AI coding tool called Bob (officially watsonx Code Assistant). According to IBM's own figures, Bob makes IBM's software engineers about 45% faster at writing code. Since 2023, Bob has saved IBM $4.5bn in costs. IBM sells its engineers' time to other companies. At 45% faster throughput, those client companies need to buy fewer hours per engagement. IBM is effectively telling investors: our most important productivity tool may also shrink the revenue base it is supposed to improve. The 30% of IBM's consulting contracts now involving AI work is the potential counterbalance, representing new types of work that AI creates rather than old work AI makes cheaper.

What could happen next?
  • Risk

    Watson Health failed to translate IBM's internal AI productivity demonstrations into durable client-facing value; watsonx Code Assistant faces the same institutional risk of a productivity gap between controlled internal conditions and complex client environments.

  • Opportunity

    If IBM can license watsonx Code Assistant directly to financial institutions for in-house COBOL modernisation, it captures the productivity premium as software revenue rather than losing it as consulting hour compression, a model closer to the DB2 precedent than to Watson Health.

Sources:Motley Fool / IBM·Motley Fool / IBM·Proactive Investors
Mentions:IBM →watsonx Code Assistant →Arvind Krishna →Meta →COBOL →Snap Inc. →Evan Spiegel →The Information →Salesforce →Prima →
First Reported In

Update #7 · Meta codes its own org chart

Motley Fool / IBM· 23 Apr 2026
Read original →
Different Perspectives
European Commission
European Commission
The European Commission's draft Annex III guidelines, closed for comment on 23 July, treat algorithmic scoring in recruitment, pay and termination as high-risk regardless of whether a human signs off, echoing Spain's Audiencia Nacional ruling 101/2026 on concealed scheduling algorithms. Brussels is shifting the fight from counting AI job losses to assigning legal liability for the tools themselves.
Office for National Statistics
Office for National Statistics
The Office for National Statistics recorded UK vacancies rising to 712,000 on 21 July, the first quarterly increase this beat has tracked, with payrolled employment down 85,000 on the year against May's 210,000 fall. The bulletin names no AI cause anywhere, and that is the point: nothing in the release confirms the displacement story it gets cited to support.
Christian Klein, SAP
Christian Klein, SAP
Christian Klein told investors on 23 July that SAP's research headcount will not grow for twelve months because AI agents and their token costs are absorbing the work, not because SAP is cutting jobs. He frames it as commercial arithmetic: the cost of AI-assisted coding tokens plus the salaries specialist AI hires command, not people being replaced by machines.
Betsey Stevenson, University of Michigan
Betsey Stevenson, University of Michigan
Betsey Stevenson argued that the 187,000 jobless-claims reading describes a market that hires little and fires little, not one AI is emptying. She said the real damage hides in eligibility rules and suppressed job postings, not in the headline layoff counts employers keep denying.
Comisiones Obreras, UGT and Concentrix's A Coruña works committee
Comisiones Obreras, UGT and Concentrix's A Coruña works committee
Comisiones Obreras, UGT and Concentrix's A Coruña works committee blamed Microsoft's push toward AI self-service for the 80 redundancies unions signed off on 22 July, not unavoidable business cause. A second Coruña procedure covering 80 more jobs runs to a 31 August deadline, and the unions want the state, not the employer, setting the pace of AI-driven cuts.
Stanford's 'We Must Act Now' signatories
Stanford's 'We Must Act Now' signatories
More than 200 academics, including 16 Nobel laureates, published a 13 July letter warning of AI-driven labour disruption, citing Daron Acemoglu's NBER estimate that AI's total factor productivity gain stays under 0.66% over ten years. The letter's own cited economics sit well below Goldman Sachs Research's 1.5-percentage-point estimate published the same week.