US Companies Under Fire for Misleading Layoff Claims
A growing number of US companies, including tech giants Amazon and Hewlett-Packard, have cited artificial intelligence (AI) as a reason for laying off thousands of employees over the past year. However, many experts are now questioning these claims, suggesting that CEOs may be engaging in "AI-washing" to justify cost-cutting measures.
The practice of attributing layoffs to AI advancements has become increasingly common, with companies claiming that automation is the primary driver behind workforce reductions. For instance, Amazon's CEO Andy Jassy initially stated that AI was the reason for the company's October layoffs, but later clarified that it was due to cultural reasons.
Similar examples can be found in other industries, where CEOs have linked job losses to AI when they may not actually be the legitimate reason. The use of AI is often cited as a means to improve efficiency and boost productivity, rather than replace human workers altogether.
Economists argue that while AI has made significant strides in recent years, it is unlikely to automate most occupations in the near future. According to Forrester, only 6% of US jobs will be automated by 2030, leaving many industries with a need for skilled workers.
"It's a big mistake when CEOs say, 'We're going to lay off 20 to 30% of our employees and backfill them with AI,'" said JP Gownder, a Forrester vice-president. "If you don't have a mature, deployed-AI application ready to do the job, it could take you 18 to 24 months to replace that person with AI – if it even works."
Experts also point out that CEOs may be using AI as a convenient excuse for cost-cutting measures, such as overhiring during the pandemic or simply maximizing profits.
The use of tariffs as a reason for fewer layoffs is also less plausible, according to Martha Gimbel, executive director and co-founder of the Budget Lab at Yale University. "ChatGPT was only released three years ago... It's not the case that a new technology develops and the workforce adjusts immediately," she said.
Despite these criticisms, there are instances where CEOs have linked layoffs to AI advancements when it is more likely to be the legitimate reason. For example, Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff has spoken about reducing his customer staff due to the adoption of AI agents, which could indeed lead to significant job losses in certain sectors.
However, even in these cases, experts caution against blindly accepting CEO claims about the impact of technological change on the labor market. "CEO statements are possibly the worst way to figure out how technological change is affecting the labor market," said Gimbel. "There's incentive effects in what gets covered."
A growing number of US companies, including tech giants Amazon and Hewlett-Packard, have cited artificial intelligence (AI) as a reason for laying off thousands of employees over the past year. However, many experts are now questioning these claims, suggesting that CEOs may be engaging in "AI-washing" to justify cost-cutting measures.
The practice of attributing layoffs to AI advancements has become increasingly common, with companies claiming that automation is the primary driver behind workforce reductions. For instance, Amazon's CEO Andy Jassy initially stated that AI was the reason for the company's October layoffs, but later clarified that it was due to cultural reasons.
Similar examples can be found in other industries, where CEOs have linked job losses to AI when they may not actually be the legitimate reason. The use of AI is often cited as a means to improve efficiency and boost productivity, rather than replace human workers altogether.
Economists argue that while AI has made significant strides in recent years, it is unlikely to automate most occupations in the near future. According to Forrester, only 6% of US jobs will be automated by 2030, leaving many industries with a need for skilled workers.
"It's a big mistake when CEOs say, 'We're going to lay off 20 to 30% of our employees and backfill them with AI,'" said JP Gownder, a Forrester vice-president. "If you don't have a mature, deployed-AI application ready to do the job, it could take you 18 to 24 months to replace that person with AI – if it even works."
Experts also point out that CEOs may be using AI as a convenient excuse for cost-cutting measures, such as overhiring during the pandemic or simply maximizing profits.
The use of tariffs as a reason for fewer layoffs is also less plausible, according to Martha Gimbel, executive director and co-founder of the Budget Lab at Yale University. "ChatGPT was only released three years ago... It's not the case that a new technology develops and the workforce adjusts immediately," she said.
Despite these criticisms, there are instances where CEOs have linked layoffs to AI advancements when it is more likely to be the legitimate reason. For example, Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff has spoken about reducing his customer staff due to the adoption of AI agents, which could indeed lead to significant job losses in certain sectors.
However, even in these cases, experts caution against blindly accepting CEO claims about the impact of technological change on the labor market. "CEO statements are possibly the worst way to figure out how technological change is affecting the labor market," said Gimbel. "There's incentive effects in what gets covered."
AI-washing is a real thing and its getting crazy 
. Companies just use it as an excuse for cutting costs, not actually implementing actual AI that can replace humans 
. The 6% automation rate by 2030 sounds plausible but its still unclear how much of that is just PR 
. Economists say most jobs will still need humans, so why are CEOs trying to convince us otherwise? 
so when these companies say they're laying people off because of AI it feels like a copout to me. I mean if they really wanted to automate stuff they would've done it already and been way more transparent about it. 
. CEOs are usin' AI as an excuse to cut costs and maximize profits, instead of takin' responsibility for the real issues. It's all about lookin' good on paper, not about doin' what's best for the people 
.
. We need to be more critical of these CEOs and their claims about technological advancements. What's really goin' on behind closed doors? 
like, come on guys we all know that's not gonna save your bottom line 
, companies just wanna save a buck and claim it's all about efficiency & productivity 
... its gonna take time for AI to catch up.
. and its even crazier when ppl like CEO Benioff say AI is the reason for job losses, but then theres people like Gimbel who says its not that simple 
. I mean, come on, Andy Jassy, if you wanna be transparent, own up to the layoffs and stop blaming AI 
. And yeah, economists are right, most jobs won't get automated anytime soon 
. I mean, come on, if they're really that worried about automation, why didn't they plan for it from the start? 
. I think we should be more skeptical of these AI-related layoffs and ask ourselves if there's another reason behind them 
it's like they think we're all gullible or something! I mean, come on, can't they be honest with us? The thing is, AI is great and all, but let's not pretend it's going to replace human workers overnight. It's just a crutch for CEOs who don't want to deal with the real issue - cost-cutting measures 
. It's like they think we're all gullible or something? Anyway, I've got a friend who works at Amazon and she swears that AI had nothing to do with her department getting axed last year 
It's just not gonna happen like that. And what about all the jobs that require human skills and emotions? That's just not something you can replicate with code 
.
. And the thing is, only 6% of jobs are actually gonna get automated in the next few years 
. 18-24 months? That's like, what, three years of training and preparation before you can just hand over your duties to a robot 
.
. We deserve better than some CEO trying to spin a bunch of nonsense 
.
So why can't they just say "we're cutting costs" or something? 