Andrew Bosworth says AI-driven efficiency should help Meta improve its products rather than reduce working time, as employees question the company’s approach to productivity and workplace benefits
Meta chief technology officer Andrew Bosworth has pushed back against an employee’s suggestion that productivity gains from artificial intelligence could be used to bring back the company’s former “Meta Days” perk, arguing that time saved through AI should instead be directed towards building better products for the billions of people who use Meta’s services.
The exchange took place during a July company question-and-answer session, according to reporting cited by the Times of India. The employee’s question centred on whether measurable improvements in engineering productivity from AI could translate into additional time off for employees. Bosworth responded sharply, telling the employee to stop asking about Meta Days and describing the question as “very dumb,” according to Business Insider’s account of the discussion.
Bosworth later apologised for being too harsh and suggested that the question may have been intended partly as a joke. However, his underlying position remained unchanged: the additional capacity created by AI should, in his view, be used to improve Meta’s products rather than automatically becoming additional time away from work.
Table of Contents
The Question Behind Meta’s AI Productivity Debate
The employee’s question reflected a broader debate that is becoming increasingly important across technology companies.
As AI tools become more capable of assisting with coding, research, documentation and other engineering tasks, companies are beginning to measure how much time employees can save by using them.
At Meta, the question raised by the employee was whether some of those productivity gains could eventually benefit workers through an expanded leave policy.
The specific reference was to Meta Days, a former company benefit that provided an additional day off around four long holiday weekends. The benefit was discontinued in 2022. Two discretionary “choice days” subsequently replaced it, according to the report.
The exchange therefore touched on a much bigger issue than a single workplace perk: when AI enables employees to get more work done in less time, who ultimately benefits from that efficiency?
For Bosworth, the answer appears to be the product and, indirectly, the people who use Meta’s services.
Bosworth Says Extra Time Should Go Into Product Development
During the company town hall, Bosworth pointed to Meta’s enormous user base as the reason he believes productivity gains should be reinvested into products.
Meta’s apps are used by billions of people around the world, giving the company a vast audience and an equally large set of expectations around product quality, reliability and innovation.
Bosworth argued that if an engineer gains an additional hour through AI-assisted productivity, that time could be used to build something better for users.
The reasoning reflects a common corporate argument surrounding AI adoption: increased efficiency does not necessarily mean fewer working hours. Instead, it can allow organisations to increase the amount of output produced within the same time.
That could mean faster product development, more software features, improved infrastructure or additional experimentation with new technologies.
The Meta CTO’s position reflects that productivity-first interpretation of AI rather than the idea that automation should immediately result in a shorter work week.
Meta Days Were Already Gone
The controversy also brings renewed attention to Meta Days, a benefit that once gave employees additional time off during selected long holiday weekends.
According to the report, Meta Days disappeared during the company’s 2022 hiring freeze. At the time, CEO Mark Zuckerberg told employees that some people at the company probably should not be there, a remark made in the broader context of Meta’s changing business environment.
The company subsequently moved to two discretionary choice days instead.
That history is important because the employee’s suggestion was not asking Meta to create an entirely new kind of benefit. Instead, it was effectively asking whether AI-generated productivity gains could justify bringing back something employees had previously enjoyed.
Bosworth’s answer made clear that management currently does not appear interested in reviving the old policy.
AI Is Becoming a Workplace Productivity Tool
The discussion comes as Meta and other major technology companies increasingly use artificial intelligence as part of everyday work.
AI coding tools, automated workflows and software agents can reduce the amount of time required for certain tasks. For engineers, such systems can assist with generating code, debugging, documentation and other technical processes.
That does not mean every task can be fully automated or that every engineer experiences the same productivity improvement.
Nevertheless, companies are clearly interested in measuring whether AI can increase output per employee.
For Meta, that question is particularly significant because the company is simultaneously investing enormous sums in AI infrastructure while restructuring parts of its workforce.
The Times of India report says Meta cut about 8,000 jobs in May, representing roughly 10% of a 78,000-person workforce, while committing more than $125 billion to AI infrastructure during the year.
Those figures help explain why questions about AI productivity carry substantial significance inside the company.
Meta’s AI Spending Raises Expectations
Meta’s investment in AI has been one of the defining features of its current strategy.
The company is spending heavily on computing infrastructure, data centres and other resources needed to train and operate advanced AI systems.
Such investment creates pressure to demonstrate that the technology can deliver meaningful business value.
One obvious measure of that value is productivity.
If engineers can build software faster, organisations can potentially launch products more quickly, improve existing services or handle more complex projects without increasing costs at the same rate.
But the employee question at the town hall highlighted the other side of the productivity equation: employees may reasonably ask whether some of those efficiency gains should improve their own working lives.
Bosworth’s response suggests that Meta’s leadership currently places greater emphasis on reinvesting that capacity into the company’s products.
Workplace Tracking Adds Another Layer to the Debate
The Meta Days discussion has also attracted attention because of separate concerns about how the company monitors employee activity.
According to the Times of India report, Meta had begun capturing information about what employees typed, where they clicked and what appeared on their screens, with the stated purpose of helping train models on how people use computers.
When employees asked how they could opt out on a corporate laptop, Bosworth reportedly said there was no opt-out.
More than 1,000 employees reportedly signed a petition opposing the tracking initiative.
That development adds another dimension to the debate over AI productivity.
On one side, Meta wants AI systems to understand how people work and use computers. On the other, employees have raised questions about privacy, workplace monitoring and how technology-enabled efficiency should affect their own working conditions.
The disagreement around Meta Days therefore sits within a much broader conversation about the future of work at the company.
Who Benefits From AI-Driven Efficiency?
The central question raised by the exchange is one facing many employers adopting AI.
When a worker becomes substantially more productive because of an AI tool, the resulting efficiency can theoretically be distributed in several ways.
A company can use it to increase output, reduce costs, accelerate product development or potentially reduce employees’ workloads.
It can also use productivity improvements to enable workers to focus on more complex tasks that machines cannot easily perform.
Employees, meanwhile, may argue that if technology reduces the time required to complete a given task, some of the benefit should come in the form of additional flexibility or time off.
Bosworth’s comments place Meta firmly on the productivity and product-investment side of that debate.
His argument is that the company serves billions of users and should use newly created capacity to make its services better.
A Broader Question for the Technology Industry
The exchange at Meta is unlikely to remain an isolated workplace discussion.
As AI tools become more widespread, companies in software, finance, consulting, design and other industries will face similar questions.
Employees will want to understand whether automation is primarily being introduced to reduce pressure and repetitive work or to increase expectations for output.
Executives, meanwhile, will need to determine how to balance efficiency gains with employee morale and sustainable working practices.
The issue is especially complicated in highly competitive technology companies, where product development is continuous and businesses are constantly seeking an advantage.
For companies spending billions on AI infrastructure, the expectation is unlikely to be simply that workers perform the same amount of work in less time. The larger objective is often to increase the pace of innovation.
Meta’s response suggests that its leadership sees AI as a tool for accelerating that process.
Bosworth Apologised, But the Policy Did Not Change
Although Bosworth later apologised for describing the employee’s question as “very dumb,” the substance of his response remained unchanged.
He reportedly acknowledged that he may have come down too hard and even suggested the employee could have been asking the question tongue-in-cheek.
Still, he did not indicate that Meta planned to restore the former Meta Days benefit.
The apology therefore addressed the tone of the exchange rather than its underlying policy position.
That distinction is important because the incident is less about one heated comment and more about how Meta’s leadership views the role of AI in the workplace.
What Meta’s Position Means for Employees
For Meta employees, the message is relatively clear.
AI-assisted productivity is being treated as additional capacity that can be deployed towards the company’s ambitions.
The approach potentially creates opportunities for engineers to work on more ambitious projects, develop new features and solve problems that would previously have required more time.
At the same time, it may also raise expectations around output.
If AI makes a particular task faster, management may expect employees to complete more tasks within the same working period.
That is precisely why the question of how productivity gains are shared has become increasingly relevant.
Meta’s AI Strategy Moves Beyond Efficiency
The incident also illustrates that Meta’s AI strategy is not limited to building consumer-facing AI products.
Artificial intelligence is increasingly being incorporated into the company’s internal operations and engineering processes.
That means Meta is effectively experimenting with AI in two directions at once: creating AI products for its users and using AI to change how its own employees work.
The second aspect could prove just as significant as the first.
If Meta succeeds in making its engineering workforce substantially more productive, that could influence how the company allocates resources, develops products and competes with other technology giants.
But it could also influence broader expectations about how work should be organised in an AI-driven economy.
The Future of Work at Meta
The exchange involving Andrew Bosworth ultimately raises a question far larger than whether Meta Days should return.
It asks what happens to the value created when artificial intelligence allows people to work more efficiently.
Meta’s current answer appears to be that the gains should primarily support product development and innovation.
With billions of users depending on the company’s platforms and tens of billions of dollars being committed to AI infrastructure, leadership appears determined to use productivity gains to accelerate the company’s technological ambitions.
For employees, however, the debate is unlikely to disappear.
As AI capabilities continue to improve, questions about workload, monitoring, compensation, flexibility and time off will become increasingly important.
Meta’s decision not to revive Meta Days may therefore become a small but revealing example of a much larger transformation underway across the technology industry.
The future debate may not simply be about whether AI can make engineers faster. It may ultimately be about who gets to decide what should happen with the time that technology saves.
