Meta Reportedly Planned 60% Layoffs to Accelerate AI Transition Before Zuckerberg Halted Second Wave
Nashnova编辑部
Reuters reports that Meta internally modeled cutting several teams by up to 60% to build an "AI-native" organization, but Zuckerberg halted the second wave just hours before the first round — the company ultimately cut only about 10%, a gap that exposes how far execution trails ambition in AI-driven workforce replacement.
What was "Project OT" actually planning?
Meta's internal codename was "Project OT" — short for Organizational Transformation. The core idea: let AI take over thousands of employees' daily tasks, while smaller, "talent-dense" human teams supervised the machines.
In scenario planning, executives explored cutting multiple teams by up to 60% — some staff would be reassigned to new units, the rest laid off.
An internal HR document indicated the cuts could match or exceed the roughly 25% layoffs from three years ago. This means → management's working assumption was that AI could already replace a substantial share of the workforce.
Why did Zuckerberg hit the brakes at the last moment?
The original plan called for two waves: Wave One in May, Wave Two in November, accompanied by a hiring freeze and performance-based attrition.
But on the night of May 19 — just hours before Wave One — Zuckerberg decided to stop. The next day Meta announced cuts of only about 10%, and Wave Two was scrapped.
In plain terms = the final headcount reduction was roughly one-sixth of the most aggressive internal scenario — the plan hit resistance that even management could not push through.
How did Meta respond?
Meta confirmed "Project OT" exists, acknowledged the two-wave structure, and conceded the most extreme scenario involved cutting certain teams by up to 60%.
The company declined to name which departments were involved, stressing that several major divisions were not in scope and that the plan included both layoffs and internal transfers — it never intended to cut 60% of total headcount.
Meta added that Wave Two was canceled before a final headcount was determined. This reflects an effort to frame the narrative as "the extreme scenario was an exercise, never a decision."
What does this actually tell us?
The gap between the actual 10% cut and the internally modeled 60% is the single most important signal in this disclosure.
This means → even the tech company most aggressively pursuing AI transformation does not have a firm answer to the question "how many people can AI actually replace?"
Whether AI can truly substitute for labor at scale — and how fast — remains the key variable for anyone watching Meta's next organizational moves.
市场有风险，内容仅供研究参考，不构成投资建议。