Meta CTO Andrew Bosworth has sparked debate over what workers should receive from AI-driven productivity improvements. During a July employee Q&A, a worker asked whether Meta could bring back “Meta Days,” a program that previously provided additional days off. Bosworth rejected the idea, arguing that employees should instead use the time saved through AI to accomplish more and build more products for Meta's users.
Bosworth said that when AI gives him an extra hour of productivity, he uses that time to work on additional projects. His comments reflect one side of a growing debate about the economic benefits of workplace AI: if employees can complete the same amount of work faster, should companies use the efficiency to increase output, or should workers receive some of the benefits through shorter working hours or additional time off?
The controversy is particularly significant at Meta because the company has simultaneously been making substantial investments in AI while reducing its workforce. TechSpot reports that Meta has cut roughly 10,000–11,000 jobs over the previous year, while AI-related capital spending over the preceding four quarters reached about $92.4 billion. This creates a striking contrast between AI's promise of greater productivity and concerns about what those gains mean for employees.
The broader issue extends far beyond Meta. AI could substantially increase what individual workers can accomplish, but who captures the value of that additional productivity remains an unresolved economic and workplace question. Companies may use the gains to produce more, reduce costs, or increase profits, while workers may argue that some of the benefits should appear as higher pay, shorter working hours, or more flexibility. Meta's stance illustrates how the AI productivity debate is increasingly becoming a debate about the future of work itself.
