Actually, if these people are good at anything is exactly what LLMs are better at: making up stuff as they go to justify arbitrary decisions and covert agendas. Extra points for buzz word bingo, especially when they have no clue what they are talking about.
This is an original analysis of roughly 1,000 SEC filings and 71 earnings call transcripts across 32 companies that publicly linked major layoffs to AI between 2023 and early 2026.
This article goes way more in-depth than I have seen previous articles do, looking at the maths behind it and actually showing that AI layoffs really are nothing but spin. If anything doing a round of AI Layoffs helps your stock for maybe a few weeks but the underlying data of your company gets increasingly worse. Every company that bought AI and cut workers to pay for it saw margins stay flat or decline.
Genuinely appreciated the articles argument that this is not to do with productivity (which has been covered a lot) but a different kind of wealth transfer one from company to company, the only companies winning are hyper scalers.
Worth reading for the methodology alone, and for the question it raises about what happens when an entire economy restructures around returns that the filings say aren't there.
I couldn't get past that sentence! They could have even said "This articles explores, "Do layoffs for AI actually help a business in the long run?"" Although I would substitute "because of" or "due to" for "for".
I really enjoyed perusing through the articles on this site. The crux underpinning the issues that were discussed is the fact that we arrived where we are today in this country through deliberate policy choices. It didn’t have to be this way, and that aspect is the most infuriating.
3xBork | 10 hours ago
Whoops.
Alternate idea: can we replace the boards and CXOs of these companies with AI and see if that works better?
RandomStuffGenerator | 9 hours ago
Actually, if these people are good at anything is exactly what LLMs are better at: making up stuff as they go to justify arbitrary decisions and covert agendas. Extra points for buzz word bingo, especially when they have no clue what they are talking about.
Aureliamnissan | 9 hours ago
LLMs apologize and rework the problem when you point out a flaw. That’s instantly disqualifying for a CEO.
[OP] heylaing | 11 hours ago
This is an original analysis of roughly 1,000 SEC filings and 71 earnings call transcripts across 32 companies that publicly linked major layoffs to AI between 2023 and early 2026.
This article goes way more in-depth than I have seen previous articles do, looking at the maths behind it and actually showing that AI layoffs really are nothing but spin. If anything doing a round of AI Layoffs helps your stock for maybe a few weeks but the underlying data of your company gets increasingly worse. Every company that bought AI and cut workers to pay for it saw margins stay flat or decline.
Genuinely appreciated the articles argument that this is not to do with productivity (which has been covered a lot) but a different kind of wealth transfer one from company to company, the only companies winning are hyper scalers.
Worth reading for the methodology alone, and for the question it raises about what happens when an entire economy restructures around returns that the filings say aren't there.
ars_inveniendi | 10 hours ago
Great article, thanks for sharing.
mwdeuce | 6 hours ago
I have to imagine for a company actively enshittifying, taking profit with no reinvestment, layoffs for AI would only hasten the decline
pcapdata | 6 hours ago
Yah the TL;DR is - Nobody saves money on AI-driven layoffs.
If these companies are not saving anything now, what is going to happen when they are required to pay unsubsidized costs for AI?
SurrealEstate | 9 hours ago
> This article explores do layoffs for AI actually help a business in the long run.
For an otherwise informative article, this headline sentence is awful.
Anything would be better:
"We explore whether AI layoffs help a business in the long run."
"Do AI layoffs help a business in the long run?"
hotinhawaii | 2 hours ago
I couldn't get past that sentence! They could have even said "This articles explores, "Do layoffs for AI actually help a business in the long run?"" Although I would substitute "because of" or "due to" for "for".
LlamasNeverLie | 9 hours ago
Ironically, the article reads like the output of an LLM with the em dashes carefully removed.
However, its thesis makes instinctive sense. No one should want what is happening here.
theshadowofself | 6 hours ago
I really enjoyed perusing through the articles on this site. The crux underpinning the issues that were discussed is the fact that we arrived where we are today in this country through deliberate policy choices. It didn’t have to be this way, and that aspect is the most infuriating.