Billionaire tech chief spruiks AI as company he co-founded cuts 150 jobs
Farquhar, who is chair of the Tech Council of Australia and co-founded the $80 billion company Atlassian, spoke to the National Press Club on Wednesday to argue the country should reform copyright law to let AI companies mine data more freely as part of a productivity blueprint.
Farquhar, who stepped down as co-chief executive of Atlassian but remains on its board, would not say whether he was aware the company planned to cut 150 jobs this week in an announcement that was delivered by chief executive Mike Cannon-Brookes via video call.
'If we make call centre staff more productive, people aren't going to call more [and] we'll probably need less call centre staff,' Farquhar said. 'Some parts of our economy will grow significantly as AI makes them more productive, and some parts of our economy will shrink as we do that.'
While Farquhar said affected employees needed help to transition jobs, 'both at a company level and as a country', he said putting the burden of retraining on companies could put them at a comparative disadvantage to other places in the world.
Loading
An Atlassian spokeswoman pointed to comments on an internal blog saying the company had made investments over the past two years aimed at improving customer experience with the platform's tools.
'For us to be successful, two things have to be true: our customers must be successful, and our business has to be fortified to succeed within the extremely fast industry that we're in,' it said. 'Our value of 'Build with Heart and Balance' is about making the hard, right decisions with passion, empathy, and care.'
A study from Microsoft, another tech giant that has invested heavily in AI, found that customer service workers were among those most exposed to losing their jobs to artificial intelligence.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
3 hours ago
- The Advertiser
At this rate, the only outcome from this summit will be making us poorer
As we approach the productivity summit to end all summits, the various players have begun to stake out the propositions they wish to advance when Jim Chalmers' roundtable begins in just over a week. The various union representatives want to advocate for higher taxes, and further restrictions on businesses: this time in relation to potential AI job losses. Meanwhile, the various business groups are focused on achievable reforms, especially in relation to regulation and red tape. Though more united than in the lead-up to 2022's disastrous "jobs and skills" summit, business leaders should be very nervous about the prospect of being cornered and pressured into accepting a "compromise" that is anything but. Specifically, business leaders should outright reject any compromise that increases taxation in order to close the budget deficit. Increasing taxation, especially tax increases that also increase the progressivity of the tax system, will be terrible for productivity. Nor will it actually fix the budget deficit problem which, as my colleague Robert Carling argues in his recent research, is driven entirely by increases in government spending. History has shown that attempts to close budget gaps with additional taxation will only lead to more spending. The deficit remains and the size of government ratchets up again. Of course, whether the roundtable achieves anything tangible will depend on the extent to which the government will use the gathering to push its economic agenda. Unfortunately, most of the Treasurer's economic ideas are unlikely to increase productivity. If anything, his government-centric view of capitalism, and the broader left's obsession with redistribution over growth, will reduce productivity growth. That said, there is no reason for the government not to do so. It is riding high after a thumping electoral victory and the opposition is in disarray. The ALP previously outmanoeuvred the same groups to gain cover for its industrial relations re-regulatory program, and productivity remains a subject poorly understood by the public at large anyway. Worse still for those actually concerned about the inevitable decline in future living standards that will come from poor productivity growth, the Labor government is the only one attempting to explain how their economic agenda fits into a broader vision for Australia. This is where the true battle should be for the summit. Labor's view of the economy is one with government at the centre directing the economic and social priorities of society in favour of unions, super funds and interest groups. These are the core left constituencies, although they claim to represent broad swathes of society - a claim that could be the subject of substantial dispute in practice. Over time, as their direct constituencies have fallen away, they have tended to adopt a broader social focus. One specific area where the left has shifted focus is the rhetorical move away from "poverty" towards "inequality". At the same time that absolute poverty in Australia has fallen significantly, the focus on the need to increase the progressivity of the tax system has increased to the point where it drowns out all other concerns. Consequently, redistribution is no longer just about creating a robust safety net for those who need it but a broader project aimed at the impossible goal of making society "fairer" for all. As we have already seen, parts of the left can never be satisfied that businesses and high-income individuals have paid enough tax to meet their supposed "fair share". This has a direct and lasting impact on productivity. Higher taxes dampen incentives to save and invest. In a world where capital and high-income individuals are highly mobile, these incentive effects are amplified. Even the government has admitted that a big part of the problem has been a sustained investment drought in Australia. Yet, for all the focus on cash incentives to lure businesses to invest again, almost no focus has been placed on why investment dried up in the first place. Surely, at least in part, the constant increase in both the volume and complexity of regulation for decades now - together with the constant pressure for higher taxation on anyone who does make a decent return - has shifted the perceptions of risk and return? Moreover, the need to constantly rebalance society to combat inequality means the burden of regulation and taxation can only increase over time. A temporary focus on deregulation at this summit, and perhaps for a short time after, will not shift this direction. The risk of a summit like this is that business, government and unions will all get together and divvy up the economic spoils, without a thought for the interests of voters and consumers. READ MORE SIMON COWAN: In that sense, not only does productivity growth not need a grand bargain from this event, there is every chance that such a deal will reduce productivity growth! It is not just alternative policies that are needed: an alternative vision is needed as well. A vision of society where anyone can get ahead, not just those who belong to the right political group. A vision where personal responsibility and personal freedom are matched and prioritised. A society of low regulation and low taxation, with a genuine safety net for those who need it, not one that institutionalises envy, and pursues policies aimed at punishing people for being successful, (like taxing unrealised gains). This leads to an economy where the interests of the consumer are put above the interests of both business and unions. Such an economy is vibrant, innovative and productive. As we approach the productivity summit to end all summits, the various players have begun to stake out the propositions they wish to advance when Jim Chalmers' roundtable begins in just over a week. The various union representatives want to advocate for higher taxes, and further restrictions on businesses: this time in relation to potential AI job losses. Meanwhile, the various business groups are focused on achievable reforms, especially in relation to regulation and red tape. Though more united than in the lead-up to 2022's disastrous "jobs and skills" summit, business leaders should be very nervous about the prospect of being cornered and pressured into accepting a "compromise" that is anything but. Specifically, business leaders should outright reject any compromise that increases taxation in order to close the budget deficit. Increasing taxation, especially tax increases that also increase the progressivity of the tax system, will be terrible for productivity. Nor will it actually fix the budget deficit problem which, as my colleague Robert Carling argues in his recent research, is driven entirely by increases in government spending. History has shown that attempts to close budget gaps with additional taxation will only lead to more spending. The deficit remains and the size of government ratchets up again. Of course, whether the roundtable achieves anything tangible will depend on the extent to which the government will use the gathering to push its economic agenda. Unfortunately, most of the Treasurer's economic ideas are unlikely to increase productivity. If anything, his government-centric view of capitalism, and the broader left's obsession with redistribution over growth, will reduce productivity growth. That said, there is no reason for the government not to do so. It is riding high after a thumping electoral victory and the opposition is in disarray. The ALP previously outmanoeuvred the same groups to gain cover for its industrial relations re-regulatory program, and productivity remains a subject poorly understood by the public at large anyway. Worse still for those actually concerned about the inevitable decline in future living standards that will come from poor productivity growth, the Labor government is the only one attempting to explain how their economic agenda fits into a broader vision for Australia. This is where the true battle should be for the summit. Labor's view of the economy is one with government at the centre directing the economic and social priorities of society in favour of unions, super funds and interest groups. These are the core left constituencies, although they claim to represent broad swathes of society - a claim that could be the subject of substantial dispute in practice. Over time, as their direct constituencies have fallen away, they have tended to adopt a broader social focus. One specific area where the left has shifted focus is the rhetorical move away from "poverty" towards "inequality". At the same time that absolute poverty in Australia has fallen significantly, the focus on the need to increase the progressivity of the tax system has increased to the point where it drowns out all other concerns. Consequently, redistribution is no longer just about creating a robust safety net for those who need it but a broader project aimed at the impossible goal of making society "fairer" for all. As we have already seen, parts of the left can never be satisfied that businesses and high-income individuals have paid enough tax to meet their supposed "fair share". This has a direct and lasting impact on productivity. Higher taxes dampen incentives to save and invest. In a world where capital and high-income individuals are highly mobile, these incentive effects are amplified. Even the government has admitted that a big part of the problem has been a sustained investment drought in Australia. Yet, for all the focus on cash incentives to lure businesses to invest again, almost no focus has been placed on why investment dried up in the first place. Surely, at least in part, the constant increase in both the volume and complexity of regulation for decades now - together with the constant pressure for higher taxation on anyone who does make a decent return - has shifted the perceptions of risk and return? Moreover, the need to constantly rebalance society to combat inequality means the burden of regulation and taxation can only increase over time. A temporary focus on deregulation at this summit, and perhaps for a short time after, will not shift this direction. The risk of a summit like this is that business, government and unions will all get together and divvy up the economic spoils, without a thought for the interests of voters and consumers. READ MORE SIMON COWAN: In that sense, not only does productivity growth not need a grand bargain from this event, there is every chance that such a deal will reduce productivity growth! It is not just alternative policies that are needed: an alternative vision is needed as well. A vision of society where anyone can get ahead, not just those who belong to the right political group. A vision where personal responsibility and personal freedom are matched and prioritised. A society of low regulation and low taxation, with a genuine safety net for those who need it, not one that institutionalises envy, and pursues policies aimed at punishing people for being successful, (like taxing unrealised gains). This leads to an economy where the interests of the consumer are put above the interests of both business and unions. Such an economy is vibrant, innovative and productive. As we approach the productivity summit to end all summits, the various players have begun to stake out the propositions they wish to advance when Jim Chalmers' roundtable begins in just over a week. The various union representatives want to advocate for higher taxes, and further restrictions on businesses: this time in relation to potential AI job losses. Meanwhile, the various business groups are focused on achievable reforms, especially in relation to regulation and red tape. Though more united than in the lead-up to 2022's disastrous "jobs and skills" summit, business leaders should be very nervous about the prospect of being cornered and pressured into accepting a "compromise" that is anything but. Specifically, business leaders should outright reject any compromise that increases taxation in order to close the budget deficit. Increasing taxation, especially tax increases that also increase the progressivity of the tax system, will be terrible for productivity. Nor will it actually fix the budget deficit problem which, as my colleague Robert Carling argues in his recent research, is driven entirely by increases in government spending. History has shown that attempts to close budget gaps with additional taxation will only lead to more spending. The deficit remains and the size of government ratchets up again. Of course, whether the roundtable achieves anything tangible will depend on the extent to which the government will use the gathering to push its economic agenda. Unfortunately, most of the Treasurer's economic ideas are unlikely to increase productivity. If anything, his government-centric view of capitalism, and the broader left's obsession with redistribution over growth, will reduce productivity growth. That said, there is no reason for the government not to do so. It is riding high after a thumping electoral victory and the opposition is in disarray. The ALP previously outmanoeuvred the same groups to gain cover for its industrial relations re-regulatory program, and productivity remains a subject poorly understood by the public at large anyway. Worse still for those actually concerned about the inevitable decline in future living standards that will come from poor productivity growth, the Labor government is the only one attempting to explain how their economic agenda fits into a broader vision for Australia. This is where the true battle should be for the summit. Labor's view of the economy is one with government at the centre directing the economic and social priorities of society in favour of unions, super funds and interest groups. These are the core left constituencies, although they claim to represent broad swathes of society - a claim that could be the subject of substantial dispute in practice. Over time, as their direct constituencies have fallen away, they have tended to adopt a broader social focus. One specific area where the left has shifted focus is the rhetorical move away from "poverty" towards "inequality". At the same time that absolute poverty in Australia has fallen significantly, the focus on the need to increase the progressivity of the tax system has increased to the point where it drowns out all other concerns. Consequently, redistribution is no longer just about creating a robust safety net for those who need it but a broader project aimed at the impossible goal of making society "fairer" for all. As we have already seen, parts of the left can never be satisfied that businesses and high-income individuals have paid enough tax to meet their supposed "fair share". This has a direct and lasting impact on productivity. Higher taxes dampen incentives to save and invest. In a world where capital and high-income individuals are highly mobile, these incentive effects are amplified. Even the government has admitted that a big part of the problem has been a sustained investment drought in Australia. Yet, for all the focus on cash incentives to lure businesses to invest again, almost no focus has been placed on why investment dried up in the first place. Surely, at least in part, the constant increase in both the volume and complexity of regulation for decades now - together with the constant pressure for higher taxation on anyone who does make a decent return - has shifted the perceptions of risk and return? Moreover, the need to constantly rebalance society to combat inequality means the burden of regulation and taxation can only increase over time. A temporary focus on deregulation at this summit, and perhaps for a short time after, will not shift this direction. The risk of a summit like this is that business, government and unions will all get together and divvy up the economic spoils, without a thought for the interests of voters and consumers. READ MORE SIMON COWAN: In that sense, not only does productivity growth not need a grand bargain from this event, there is every chance that such a deal will reduce productivity growth! It is not just alternative policies that are needed: an alternative vision is needed as well. A vision of society where anyone can get ahead, not just those who belong to the right political group. A vision where personal responsibility and personal freedom are matched and prioritised. A society of low regulation and low taxation, with a genuine safety net for those who need it, not one that institutionalises envy, and pursues policies aimed at punishing people for being successful, (like taxing unrealised gains). This leads to an economy where the interests of the consumer are put above the interests of both business and unions. Such an economy is vibrant, innovative and productive. As we approach the productivity summit to end all summits, the various players have begun to stake out the propositions they wish to advance when Jim Chalmers' roundtable begins in just over a week. The various union representatives want to advocate for higher taxes, and further restrictions on businesses: this time in relation to potential AI job losses. Meanwhile, the various business groups are focused on achievable reforms, especially in relation to regulation and red tape. Though more united than in the lead-up to 2022's disastrous "jobs and skills" summit, business leaders should be very nervous about the prospect of being cornered and pressured into accepting a "compromise" that is anything but. Specifically, business leaders should outright reject any compromise that increases taxation in order to close the budget deficit. Increasing taxation, especially tax increases that also increase the progressivity of the tax system, will be terrible for productivity. Nor will it actually fix the budget deficit problem which, as my colleague Robert Carling argues in his recent research, is driven entirely by increases in government spending. History has shown that attempts to close budget gaps with additional taxation will only lead to more spending. The deficit remains and the size of government ratchets up again. Of course, whether the roundtable achieves anything tangible will depend on the extent to which the government will use the gathering to push its economic agenda. Unfortunately, most of the Treasurer's economic ideas are unlikely to increase productivity. If anything, his government-centric view of capitalism, and the broader left's obsession with redistribution over growth, will reduce productivity growth. That said, there is no reason for the government not to do so. It is riding high after a thumping electoral victory and the opposition is in disarray. The ALP previously outmanoeuvred the same groups to gain cover for its industrial relations re-regulatory program, and productivity remains a subject poorly understood by the public at large anyway. Worse still for those actually concerned about the inevitable decline in future living standards that will come from poor productivity growth, the Labor government is the only one attempting to explain how their economic agenda fits into a broader vision for Australia. This is where the true battle should be for the summit. Labor's view of the economy is one with government at the centre directing the economic and social priorities of society in favour of unions, super funds and interest groups. These are the core left constituencies, although they claim to represent broad swathes of society - a claim that could be the subject of substantial dispute in practice. Over time, as their direct constituencies have fallen away, they have tended to adopt a broader social focus. One specific area where the left has shifted focus is the rhetorical move away from "poverty" towards "inequality". At the same time that absolute poverty in Australia has fallen significantly, the focus on the need to increase the progressivity of the tax system has increased to the point where it drowns out all other concerns. Consequently, redistribution is no longer just about creating a robust safety net for those who need it but a broader project aimed at the impossible goal of making society "fairer" for all. As we have already seen, parts of the left can never be satisfied that businesses and high-income individuals have paid enough tax to meet their supposed "fair share". This has a direct and lasting impact on productivity. Higher taxes dampen incentives to save and invest. In a world where capital and high-income individuals are highly mobile, these incentive effects are amplified. Even the government has admitted that a big part of the problem has been a sustained investment drought in Australia. Yet, for all the focus on cash incentives to lure businesses to invest again, almost no focus has been placed on why investment dried up in the first place. Surely, at least in part, the constant increase in both the volume and complexity of regulation for decades now - together with the constant pressure for higher taxation on anyone who does make a decent return - has shifted the perceptions of risk and return? Moreover, the need to constantly rebalance society to combat inequality means the burden of regulation and taxation can only increase over time. A temporary focus on deregulation at this summit, and perhaps for a short time after, will not shift this direction. The risk of a summit like this is that business, government and unions will all get together and divvy up the economic spoils, without a thought for the interests of voters and consumers. READ MORE SIMON COWAN: In that sense, not only does productivity growth not need a grand bargain from this event, there is every chance that such a deal will reduce productivity growth! It is not just alternative policies that are needed: an alternative vision is needed as well. A vision of society where anyone can get ahead, not just those who belong to the right political group. A vision where personal responsibility and personal freedom are matched and prioritised. A society of low regulation and low taxation, with a genuine safety net for those who need it, not one that institutionalises envy, and pursues policies aimed at punishing people for being successful, (like taxing unrealised gains). This leads to an economy where the interests of the consumer are put above the interests of both business and unions. Such an economy is vibrant, innovative and productive.
News.com.au
8 hours ago
- News.com.au
The former Perth student who knocked back Mark Zuckerberg
EXCLUSIVE A former elite Perth schoolboy who reportedly turned down a billion-dollar offer from Mark Zuckerberg has been described as a 'modest' man. has discovered the impressive family stock of leading AI mind Andrew Tulloch, who made global headlines for rejecting a reported $1.5 billion payday to work for Meta. Meta, the parent company of Facebook, responded to say the description of the offer first reported by the Wall Street Journal 'is inaccurate and ridiculous'. It can be revealed Mr Tulloch, a University of Sydney graduate now in his mid 30s labelled an 'extreme genius' by an ex-colleague, is the grandson of former New Zealand prime minister Sir John Marshall. His father, retired doctor Alastair Tulloch, was in 2020 made a member of the Order of Australia for significant service to medicine, urology, and the community of Claremont, WA. The former long-term Town of Claremont councillor Dr Tulloch AM declined to comment on his son's career when contacted by saying Andrew was a 'modest' man. Now based in California, Andrew Tulloch this year co-founded the AI start-up Thinking Machines Lab a venture that already has a reported value of $18.5 billion. Another of the five co-founders is Mira Murati, whom Mr Tulloch previously worked with at OpenAI – the company behind ChatGPT. Before that the Australian spent 11 years at Facebook's AI research arm. Ms Murati wrote on X last month that Thinking Machines Lab aimed 'to empower humanity through advancing collaborative general intelligence'. 'We're building multimodal AI that works with how you naturally interact with the world – through conversation, through sight, through the messy way we collaborate.' Mr Tulloch's work at OpenAI included pre-training for ChatPGT4o and 4.5, and reasoning for the o series, his LinkedIn profile states. Responding to the Journal's article on July 31, Meta communication director Andy Stone wrote on X the company 'made offers only to a handful of people at TML and while there was one sizeable offer, the details are off'. 'At the end of the day, this all begs the question who is spinning this narrative and why.' At Facebook, according to a CV seen by Mr Tulloch built machine learning platforms 'capable of learning multi-billion dimensional weight vectors trained from tens of billions of impressions per day in real time, distributed across hundreds of servers, and predicting millions of examples every second'. Mr Tulloch graduated from prestigious Christ Church Grammar School in 2007 with a TER of 99.95 and placed second out of 10,000 West Australian students in the final school exams. He was the school Dux and served as a prefect, as the captain of mock trials and debating and represented Australia in the international Chemistry Olympiad competition. The Year 12 student was awarded a silver medal at the chemistry competition held in Moscow, ranking 42nd overall and first in the southern hemisphere. A 2014 article posted to the school website recounts former Australian prime minister John Howard attending an event to promote his book on Sir Robert Menzies. The event was co-presented by the Centre for Ethics, whose director Canon Frank Sheehan was quoted speaking about a white hat he was seen wearing. 'Interestingly, the hat belongs to former Christ Church parent Margaret Tulloch, whose husband Alistair (sic) is pictured alongside me,' he said. 'Sir Menzies presented this hat to his friend Sir John Marshall, the Prime Minister of New Zealand. Sir John was Margaret's father.' The article noted Alastair and Margaret Tulloch were the parents of 2007 graduate Andrew Tulloch. In a statement, the Chirst Church Grammar School Old Boys' Association said it did not wish to make a comment about the success of its alumnus. 'The Old Boys' Association takes great pride in recognising and celebrating the achievements of members within our community, many of whom continue to make significant contributions across a wide range of fields,' it said. 'While we acknowledge the interest surrounding this matter, the Old Boys' Association will not be making any comment at this time.' During his uni days he graduated with first class honours and the university medal in mathematics at Sydney uni in 2011, with the highest GPA in the Faculty of Science. Afterwards he completed a masters in mathematical statistics and machine learning at the University of Cambridge in 2013 and 2014. Mr Tulloch also worked part-time as an analyst at Goldman Sachs while studying in Sydney, developing 'machine learning models to improve trading algorithms for the optimal execution of market orders'. Meta has pumped billions into its AI teams and has reportedly been attempting to poach leading minds from rivals as it seeks to establish itself as the frontrunner in the game-changing technology. OpenAI chief Sam Altman said in June that Meta had offered US$100 million bonuses ($155 million) to his employees in a bid to win over talent for its generative AI teams. Mr Altman also said Mr Zuckerberg's company offered 'giant' annual salaries exceeding US$100 million to OpenAI staffers. 'I'm really happy that at least so far none of our best people have decided to take them up on that,' he said. Meta did secure the services of OpenAI researcher Yuanzhi Li in July, after appointing Scale AI founder Alexandr Wang as its head of 'superintelligence'. Mr Zuckerberg last month said in a staff memo that the rest of the 2020s would be a key period in 'determining the path this technology will take'. 'Over the last few months we have begun to see glimpses of our AI systems improving themselves,' he wrote. 'The improvement is slow for now, but undeniable. Developing superintelligence is now in sight.'
ABC News
9 hours ago
- ABC News
Is God in the machine?
Can we know God through machines? Can machines know God? And could machines, one day, become godlike themselves? While AI is still in its infancy, it is evolving at lightning speed, and ingraining itself in our lives. From writing our emails, creating our budgets and even serving as our therapists, society is embracing AI as part of our everyday lives. But what about faith? Our spirituality, our souls, our connection to God - these are elements of the human experience that can't be quantified by science, and reproduced in machines. Or can they? GUESTS: Dr. Declan Humphreys is a lecturer in Cyber Security and Ethics at the School of Science, Technology and Engineering at the University of the Sunshine Coast. He is also one of the winners of the ABC Top 5 Humanity residency programme for 2025. is a lecturer in Cyber Security and Ethics at the School of Science, Technology and Engineering at the University of the Sunshine Coast. He is also one of the winners of the ABC Top 5 Humanity residency programme for 2025. Dr. Jane Compson , Associate Professor of Comparative Religion and Ethics at the University of Washington, Tacoma. Jane is a practicing Buddhist and a trained chaplain. She is also a member of the research team at AI and Faith. , Associate Professor of Comparative Religion and Ethics at the University of Washington, Tacoma. Jane is a practicing Buddhist and a trained chaplain. She is also a member of the research team at AI and Faith. Carl Youngblood, is the co-founder and current president of the Mormon Transhumanist Association, and has more than 20 years experience in software engineering and technology development. This program was made on the lands of the Gadigal People of the Eora Nation, and the lands of The Turrbal and Yuggera People.
