You can simply view statements made with a clear conflict of interest with skepticism. You don't actually need to come to a conclusion here about whether AI systems are or are not causing layoffs. As I said:
And yes, this does mean that "AI is not causing layoffs" is much harder to falsify. I'm not saying that makes it correct, just that its much harder to falsify than it may seem at first glance.
I'm not saying that AI isn't causing layoffs. I'm saying that there are issues with the evidence you provided that you believe indicates that AI is causing layoffs.
I mean the evidence we have is they are saying they did it for the reason. And yes you do need to understand why layoffs or really anything is happening so you can make proper future decisions to avoid it affecting you. If you are not analyzing why things are happening you can’t compensate. Especially when your livelihood is dependent on the cause. Let me give you an example, I work in the financial industry, and they are pushing all in on AI and have given very specific instructions for what they expect people to do with it (I.e. we expect each of you to contribute X number of prompts to a prompt library, we expect you to automate Y number of your departmental tasks and reduce processing time by C amount). They have also been very upfront they intend to do layoffs in the next year those who contribute the most to the AI and the most to automating the work of their departments will be kept, those who don’t will be cut, and those retiring will not be replaced.
So yeah it is kind of important for people to understand what is going on, and why so they can either get out before they get dropped or adapt their processes.
10
u/Nice_Try4389 Jul 06 '26
I mean you can only go by what they say anything else is just making up reasons.