''AI-First” at Duolingo: A Bold Vision, Poorly Communicated
Duolingo CEO Luis von Ahn dropped a bombshell this week: the company is going “AI-first.” — But the message backfired
Everything started well by comparing their new shift to Duolingo’s 2012 bet on mobile — a bet that ultimately transformed the company. But despite the ambition behind the message, the delivery? Messy.
The post didn’t land as intended. Instead of rallying support, it sparked a backlash. Why? Because while the content hinted at thoughtful change, the tone triggered fears of job cuts, Dehumanization, and a future where people are reduced to AI trainers.
Let’s break it down.
Duolingo’s rationale for going AI-first is strong
Education is content-heavy and scale-limited. You can’t teach millions of learners in dozens of languages using manual processes alone. AI solves real bottlenecks — content generation, personalization, accessibility — and the company has already proven it can use AI meaningfully.
Replacing a “slow, manual content creation process” with an AI-powered one makes sense. So does acknowledging that getting AI to understand their codebase will take time. These are real challenges worth tackling.
Luis is also right that we shouldn’t wait for the technology to be perfect before moving. In fast-moving industries, perfection often arrives too late.
But is that innovation also backed by a strong commitment to AI ethics and regulation? Embracing that is what we call true leadership in the era of AI, and perhaps that’s exactly what was missing from such a bold announcement.
The Problem: A Vision That Sounds Like a Threat
But here’s where the communication breaks down: while the ideas might be sound, the tone of the message made employees (and the public) feel like they were being warned, not inspired.
Take this line:
“We’ll gradually stop using contractors to do work that AI can handle.”
There’s no reassurance for contractors reading that — just a blunt statement that your role is being phased out. Then, this:
“Headcount will only be given if a team cannot automate more of their work.”
That’s not a strategic shift — that reads like a budget restriction wrapped in AI hype.
It’s not hard to see why the reaction online ranged from skeptical to outright hostile. Even people who support the use of AI in the workplace felt this message lacked empathy and failed to clarify what “AI-first” actually means for humans.
Mixed Messaging
One moment, Luis says:
“Duolingo will remain a company that cares deeply about its employees.”
But the bullet points that follow — tying hiring, performance, and team growth to how well people automate their own jobs — tell a different story. There’s a disconnect here between values and implementation.
If the goal is to empower people to do more creative, meaningful work, then say that — and explain what kind of support, retraining, or job evolution is being offered.
As it stands, the email reads like AI is the future and humans are the bottleneck.
What He Could Have Said Instead
Imagine if the same message had been framed like this:
- “We’re going AI-first — not to replace people, but to unlock the full potential of our teams.”
- “We’ll invest in tools and training to help our team work alongside AI, not be measured against it.”
- “Our goal is to make sure people spend less time doing repetitive tasks and more time solving problems.”
That kind of framing would’ve invited trust. Instead, the email left many feeling disposable, like the company’s admiration for its employees had an asterisk.
Statements That Could Trigger Fear/Concern
“When there’s a shift this big, the worst thing you can do is wait.”
- Perception: Creates urgency through fear; implies that hesitation means falling behind
- Improvement: Frame as opportunity rather than threat (“This shift offers tremendous opportunities for those who engage early”)
“Making minor tweaks to systems designed for humans won’t get us there.”
- Perception: Suggests current work will become obsolete
- Improvement: Emphasize evolution rather than replacement (“We’ll build on our human-centered systems and enhance them with AI capabilities”)
“We’ll gradually stop using contractors to do work that AI can handle.”
- Perception: Immediate job elimination concerns (even for full-time employees who may worry they’re next)
- Improvement: Focus on reallocation of human talent (“We’ll redirect our contractor resources toward higher-value work as we automate routine tasks”)
“Headcount will only be given if a team cannot automate more of their work.”
- Perception: Teams must eliminate jobs or lose growth opportunities
- Improvement: Frame as investment in augmentation (“We’ll invest in teams that leverage AI to multiply their impact rather than simply adding headcount”)
“AI use will be part of what we evaluate in performance reviews.”
- Perception: Employees who aren’t AI-savvy will be penalized
- Improvement: Emphasize the support provided (“We’ll recognize growth in AI capabilities while providing comprehensive training to ensure everyone succeeds”)
Overall Tone Issues
The message uses several high-pressure phrases that could trigger anxiety:
- “can’t wait until the technology is 100% perfect”
- “Move with urgency.”
- “miss the moment”
These create a sense that employees must adapt immediately or be left behind, rather than feeling supported through a transition.
What’s Working Well
The message does include some reassuring elements that should be amplified:
- Commitment to employee care
- Promise of training and mentorship
- Focus on creative work over repetitive tasks
- Historical context of successful transitions (mobile-first)
Key Changes Needed
- Replace urgency driven by fear with urgency driven by opportunity
- Detail specific benefits for employees (not just the company)
- Provide a clearer explanation of what “AI-first” means for day-to-day work
- Outline concrete support mechanisms, not just evaluation criteria
- Acknowledge and validate concerns proactively
- Use more collaborative language (“we’re in this together”)
Vision Without Clarity Is a Risk
Duolingo’s shift to AI-first isn’t surprising. It might even be necessary. But even good ideas need careful communication, especially when they involve jobs, performance, and automation.
The backlash wasn’t just resistance to change. It was a rational reaction to an unclear message.
Because here’s the thing: People don’t fear AI. They fear being left out of the plan.
And in this case, Duolingo didn’t bring them in.
Thanks for reading! Stay in touch! Subscribe to my newsletter
✔️Follow me to stay updated
👏🏻Clap if you enjoyed the article
☕ Buy me a coffee — that little ping of appreciation never gets old.💙
I help startups overcome obstacles and build thoughtful products. If you’re facing challenges or need to sharpen your product strategy, let’s collaborate
