Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 04/15/2026 12:02:31 PM PDT by fireman15
A growing number of experts argue that many companies blaming artificial intelligence for job cuts are masking more familiar financial and strategic pressures.
The good news for employees worried about the countless predictions of a looming job apocalypse from artificial intelligence (AI) taking work away from humans has not been borne out—at least not yet. However, that hasn’t prevented an increasing number of companies from citing productivity gains made by using those task automating apps as the reason for thousands of recent layoffs they’ve made.
But now, a growing chorus of critics have begun denouncing most of those staff reductions as cynical, manipulative “AI-washing” of headcount reductions that employers feel forced to make—and for reasons entirely unrelated to the emerging tech.
Those accusations have grown louder in recent weeks as companies including Amazon, Pinterest, Hewlett-Packard, Oracle, Meta, and others have announced headcount cuts they’ve either partially or fully attributed to the work automating capabilities of AI. More recently, tech innovator Jack Dorsey explained he was eliminating about 4,000 jobs—or about 40 percent of all positions—at his fintech company Block on the logic “intelligence tools have changed what it means to build and run a company.”
Shortly after that, software firm followed suit by Atlassian saying it would cut 10 percent of its workforce, or 1,600 people, as AI apps take over departing employees’ work.
(Excerpt) Read more at inc.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
In response, a growing number of observers contend many businesses are indeed being disingenuous, as they effectively blaming AI for job eliminations they decided to undertake for a variety of other reasons. There are many explanations for why such high profile companies might make that feint.
In Atlassian’s case, the motive could have been pressure from financial markets now betting heavily that AI that’s increasingly automating code writing may put software companies like its own out of business—unless its leaders don’t find a way to prevent that. Skeptics claim creating the appearance of unloading employees and replacing them with those same apps might be a way of calming investor fears.
For other businesses, the objectives driving layoffs could be correcting excessive hiring sprees that were common after the pandemic; pursuit of strategies eliminating entire layers of managers; or seeking the virtually certain surge in share prices as investors reward cost-cutting layoff announcements. When Amazon said in January it was cutting headcount by another 16,000 employees, all those motives appeared to be involved—yet it initially explained the move as handing over more company workload to AI apps.
Similar decisions by more companies to attribute layoffs to the work automation and productivity gains of apps have led critics to call out what they see as a rising tide of AI-washing. One big reason for those doubts is the tech doesn’t appear ready to start shoving human employees aside—at least not in the way most businesses are using it.
Indeed, an MIT study published last August determined 95 percent of businesses that have spent up to $40 billion on AI development and app purchases in the past two years have gotten zero return on their investments. That has reinforced the arguments of some business experts that companies now attributing layoffs to expanding use of AI couldn’t possibly be sacrificing their human assets in favor of the underperforming tech—unless they needed to make those cuts anyway.
“Companies are saying that ‘we’re anticipating that we’re going to introduce AI that will take over these jobs,’” University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business professor Peter Cappelli recently told The New York Times. “But it hasn’t happened yet. So that’s one reason to be skeptical.”
Data appears to back up that doubt. In January, a study published by research and advisory firm Forrester found that by 2032, AI will probably only fully automate about 6 percent of all U.S. jobs. In the meantime, it warned, most companies now claiming they’re cutting staffing to hand more work to apps will be forced to undo the damage of those hasty dismissals by replacing or rehiring virtually all their departed employees.
“(O)ver-automating roles due to the hype surrounding AI can lead to costly pullbacks, damaged reputations, and weakened employee experiences,” the company said. “Forrester’s 2026 future-of-work predictions further reveal that over half of layoffs attributed to AI will be quietly reversed as companies realize the operational challenges of replacing human talent prematurely.”
But why would employers whose AI adoption and deployment efforts are still in relatively early stages want to claim the apps are driving their layoff plans?
In many cases, critics contend they seek to depict what have become inevitable staff cuts planned for other reasons, repackaging them as bold decisions by businesses on the cutting edge of revolutionary technological change. That temptation is likely especially great for publicly traded companies whose share prices risk suffering if they’re not viewed by investors as pursuing critical, high-growth opportunities.
Yet despite the increasing number and volume of layoff announcements citing automating app use as their justification, there’s evidence supporting doubters’ denunciation of spreading AI-washing.
According to executive placement specialist Challenger, Gray & Christmas, only about 54,900 of the over 1.2 million job cuts made in the U.S. last year were plausibly motivated by AI actually replacing human employees.
Those numbers also appear to support prevailing views about AI-washing on social media network Reddit. Many, if not most contributors to the platform claim companies attributing headcount reductions to their expanding use of apps are merely head fakes by executives reducing staff for the usual reasons.
“(C)ompanies have been using ‘AI’ as an excuse for everything lately when there just trying to cut costs and boost profits,” replied External_Witness845 to an AI subreddit thread titled “US companies accused of ‘AI washing’ in using artificial intelligence for job losses” in February. “The whole pandemic over-hiring thing makes way more sense than some magical AI revolution happening overnight.”
“Yeah, AI isn’t sophisticated (enough) yet for mass displacement,” agreed PliskinRen1991. “When it will be is anybody’s guess. So layoffs are mostly unrelated to AI.”
Another Redditor had an even more pointed response to a separate thread on mass layoffs announcements that were based on increasing use of AI tools.
“100 percent AI-washing,” intelpentium400 responded to news reports of widening app-inspired headcount cuts. “It’s become an easy excuse for everything. Can’t wait for this artificial bubble to pop.”
I wouldn’t be surprised if AI is used as the excuse for employers to fire all the worthless DEI hires they brought in to satisfy Brandon’s regulations and the ESG rankings that state pension fund managers were looking for (big investment money).
LOL!
AI is cutting my grass this afternoon.
Because they saw Elon Musk cut 80% of the employees at Twitter/X and the company didn’t miss a beat, and realized that they were way over staffed with useless people.
Companies are cutting because they think it will replace employees. Companies always jump at what they think will save them money. Companies always walk into things that they think will make them money. Cutting is always easier to knee jerk than growth.
My next-door neighbor is a software engineer for Amazon. They are always announcing job cuts because of AI, so I asked him if he was concerned. He said that all the AI generated crap code without good documentation, has made his job more secure, because a lot of it does not work as intended. And it takes someone with actual skill set to try and fix the problems created.
Companies can produce less and charge more.
Because the people just bend over and take it.
Conditioning.
A lot of companies are just openly hostile to the concept of employees. Where I am has been cutting and cutting and cutting for 15 years. We just lost 25% percent of our engineers (now down to under a dozen) in the product I work on, a product that makes a couple hundred million bucks a year. I don’t know if they bothered to blame AI, but the reality is they’ve been trying to figure out how to make money without employing anybody for a long time.
I confess that I now use AI apps every day. But I have the expectation that a high percentage of what I get back is not reliable information. But I love generating images such as the one above and some of the music that I get generated is really good and far better than anything that I have ever made.
But also trying to find out somewhat obscure information is also greatly aided by AI, although that comes with the above warning that a lot of it is crap, because it comes from sources such as Wikipedia which is filled with nonsense.
Most software in the U.S. is for highly custom situations for a business -- things that are hard to find patterns for because your business is the only one that has your unique set of business rules, customer base, goals, etc. At least for now, AI is like the new drag-and-drop web tools that made everyone think a few decades ago that few programmers will be needed if anyone can make his own website. After a short blip, demand for programmers increased, in part because expectations for software increased. (i.e. more and more managers wanted more reporting than before, or more custom interaction with the customer based on the customer's history with the company, etc).
That's how I see AI doing for most businesses. It'll be another tool that'll create more demand for IT features because AI will make the features more feasible.
We don’t know what to do with all the
worlds useless people(AKA Democrats).
That is the problem.
Re: Robo Lawnmower image
Be careful. This is how the Zanti Misfits will establish a foothold.
Back in the day, I managed a bank call center and was a co-owner of the web banking roll out.
Admittedly when the web system rolled out we had a significant reduction in telephone calls (almost 30% by month 2.) But, when it came time for staff cutting we rolled a few more agents who were performing “less than”. It was all based on “the internet.” THAT made it easier because no one would argue with that premise.
I am sure AI is following a similar developmental path.
Not my post.
I chuckled at your post. My use of AI is to have it draw a daily cartoon of my dog in “crazy antics” around the house. It started when she was in the hospital after open heart surgery….and its just kept going.
It is fun.
My kids think I am destroying the environment.
But, as I wrote…they are fun and my wife looks forward to them.
Agree DEI damage doesn’t come cheap.
Photo....
Did a cow die to provide the leather for the shoes and brief case?
I too spend a lot some of my time fixing AI code the younger engineers use that ends up not working right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.