#ai

Cold....hard.....facts. Their massive AI Infrastructure-Related Securities Suit aside.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zECyMRI8sV4

1 By partnering closely with NVIDIA, Dell successfully secured a front-row seat on the AI wave.
2 By backing Donald Trump, Dell gained political support and substantial government orders.
3 By distancing the company from China and giving up part of the Chinese market, Dell earned strong trust from Trump and his allies.
4 Through quiet but decisive and continuous layoffs, Dell has consistently reduced costs.
5 By shifting operations toward India, Dell has maintained product competitiveness.

I mean, once AI gets exposed as an overhyped, expensive, hallucinating toy?

How much more do you think the company will shut down with GTP coming online?

Survey reveals that 99% of CEOs now expect AI-driven layoffs — companies are racing to replace junior workers with AI, even as many executives remain uncertain about the returns on AI investments | Tom's Hardware

Survey reveals that 99% of CEOs now expect AI-driven layoffs — companies are racing to replace junior workers with AI, even as many executives remain uncertain about the returns on AI investments

A recent study by consulting firm Mercer has revealed that an unprecedented 99% of CEOs envision AI-driven layoffs in the short term. The survey, which covered 12,000 C-suite executives, HR leaders, employees, and investors, showed that an overwhelming majority of executives expect AI "to lead to at least some headcount reduction in the next two years." At the same time, work and economic anxiety are increasing among employees, while workplace well-being has plummeted, with the portion of workers reporting that they "feel good at work" dropping from 66% in 2024 to just 44%.

The report also revealed that young professionals, aged 22 to 27, face the highest risk of job displacement as CEOs target simple tasks that typically served to train new hires. Because generative AI excels at codifiable, routine entry-level tasks, companies are slowing down traditional junior hiring pipelines. Standard Chartered recently announced plans to cut 7,000 jobs to replace ‘lower-value human capital’ and focus on automation.

Confirming the trend is another report from the consulting firm Oliver Wyman, based on a global survey of CEOs. The Oliver Wyman report revealed that the number of companies actively reducing junior/entry-level roles spiked from 17% to 43% in a single year due to automation.

Whether massive AI adoption and the resulting trends are worth it remains to be seen. Around 40,000 tech industry employees lost their jobs in the first quarter of 2026. Despite such trends, the Mercer report found that only 32% of surveyed executives believe their companies can effectively combine human labor with AI systems, even as they heavily push for AI to maximize return on investment.

Oliver Wyman’s report shows that AI was a top-three priority for most CEOs, with more 90% confirming the deployment or intention to deploy AI in their companies. Conversely, more than 50% say they can’t yet tell whether this AI deployment is actually delivering on the expected productivity gains.

A mere 27% of CEOs said the return on AI investment had actually met or exceeded expectations, down from 38% the previous year. Nearly 25% said they had seen absolutely no impact on revenue. The report suggests that the realities of redesigning entire workflows may be curbing AI enthusiasm, even as the worrisome trends continue.

While massive corporations like Amazon, Accenture, and Meta continue to announce thousands of job cuts tied to automation, macroeconomic data reveal a more complex narrative. Data highlighted by Fortune shows that automation-driven layoffs have frequently failed to deliver promised financial returns or measurable productivity gains.

Another interesting narrative is an AI smokescreen. Reports from labor analysts like Challenger, Gray & Christmas indicate that while AI is the most frequently cited reason for job cuts, many experts believe tech CEOs are using AI as a smokescreen to mask deeper internal struggles, corrections to overhiring, and shifts toward outsourcing.

In many ways, the reports paint a picture of a corporate world charging headfirst into an AI transformation it barely understands. Companies are cutting entry-level roles that traditionally trained the next generation of workers, even as many executives privately admit they still cannot prove the technology delivers meaningful returns. If the trend continues, an entire generation could find itself shut out of the traditional career pipeline altogether — trapped in a labor market that increasingly demands experience while simultaneously eliminating the jobs designed to provide it.

Proponents argue that humanity as a whole has always emerged unscathed and better off after massive technological revolutions, despite initial fears and shake-ups. On the other hand, opponents argue that a zoomed-in view of the actual impact such changes have is necessary for ethical implementation. We recently reported that a Chinese court ruled that companies cannot replace workers simply because “AI can do a better job.”

https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intelligence/survey-reveals-that-99-percent-of-ceos-now-expect-ai-driven-layoffs-companies-are-racing-to-replace-junior-workers-with-ai-even-as-many-executives-remain-uncertain-about-the-returns-on-ai-investments

Simple Google search
Yes, AI can actually cost significantly more than human labor. A major reason for this is that running advanced AI requires massive amounts of expensive hardware and energy, making human workers the cheaper and more economically viable option for about (77\%) of roles.Why AI Can Cost More Than HumansSky-High Compute Fees: The processing power—measured in tokens—required for complex, multi-step "agentic" AI systems can outpace the costs of human salaries. Companies like Uber have reported blowing through their entire yearly AI budgets in just a few months due to heavy infrastructure usage.Expensive Hardware and Energy: Nvidia's vice president of applied deep learning has noted that for his team, AI compute costs far exceed the salaries of the employees utilizing the tools.Required Human Oversight: AI still makes frequent errors, forcing companies to pay human workers to monitor the models, review outputs, and fix breakdowns.The Economic RealityA landmark MIT study found that it is only economically viable to automate about (23\%) of jobs. In the remaining (77\%) of cases, employing a human is cheaper, more accurate, and more efficient than relying on artificial intelligence.While research firm Gartner projects that the unit cost of running large language models will drop substantially by 2030, overall enterprise costs will likely remain high. This is because businesses are utilizing much more complex models that require significantly more processing power per task.You can read more about the challenges of AI replacing human labor in this MIT Study or learn about enterprise budget shifts on Forbes.

Hard to keep calliing yourself a “leading company” when the customers are disappearing...

Maybe the next growth market is selling health insurance in all the countries they offshored all this work to. Oh wait now AI is coming for those jobs too? My bad. Maybe Im just not seeing the grand strategy here...

So who exactly buys the AI-generated products and services when the workers who used to have paychecks are gone? Other AI or soemthing else... a closed little circle of bots healing and billing other bots?

Brilliant stuff for real... The rocket scientists may have missed one tiny detail and that is that customers need income before they can become customers.

Nvidia executive: The cost of AI tools is ‘far beyond’ the cost of human workers | Fortune https://share.google/6dSQd3XuczlH5KXs1

I had to laugh.

"AI produces gains where tasks are structured, feedback is quick, and performance is measurable. It does not magically fix bad management, muddled processes, or poor judgment. "

Sooo...who is going to tell Derek Flowers?

https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/5892858-ai-workplace-divide-careers/

https://l.smartnews.com/p-7N8S54w8/P2qeIM

Claude Code launched inside Microsoft's Experiences and Devices group in December 2025. Six months later, the experiment is ending. The tool was not cancelled because engineers disliked it. It was cancelled because they used it too much.

Will AI replace Dan and his leadership team? 😅

Is SAP still a software company? CK opened with this question at Sapphire.

There are more and more reports of SAP moving away from creating software products. And CK wants SAP to become the largest private and public sector data store for Palantir. What is the strategy even?

And if AI is good enough to make decisions, why are we not replacing our executives with AI?

I foresee a giant push back from the public sector when they realize that SAP is simply looking to get acquired by Palantir.

👍

is when the regulators start looking at how employers ignore honest feedback from AI.

better keep those records.

its all going away.

Have the people pushing this ever actually used AI for anything real? Yeah, you can automate some boring stuff, but you could do that with regular code, and you wouldn't have to babysit it. Plus, AI doesn't create anything new. It never will. Once we're gone, who's left to train it? Game over. Makes zero sense to me.

Why did bp increase headcount 18% last year with ongoing strategic layoffs?
Has AI permitted bp to be leaner and meaner? And simpler?
Is bp’s AI a thing? Has bp’s super computer actually resolved making operations safer and more productive?
Are the 15,000 new employees hired last 20 months based in India? Are we removing one western employee and hiring 3 Sub Continent employees ?

I’m pretty sure my boss is a re--rd and lacks the judgment and skill set for the role. He has a very childlike mindset and doesn’t seem to understand that putting people’s personal information into AI is a serious violation of trust. I go into work with the best intentions, but my direct manager consistently makes the experience frustrating and unprofessional. Basic decision-making, communication, and common sense seem to be a struggle for him, and it’s hard to see what qualifications or actual expertise got him into the position in the first place. It honestly feels like the rest of the team is constantly compensating for his lack of competence instead of being led by someone capable.

CSSC New York

This is crazy.

Story by Craig Hale

Four in five execs say they were less likely to value human employees after using AI
AI still requires human oversight, and many struggle to fully trust it

Poor and even negative ROI continues to plague many

A new study by Globalization Partners has revealed more than four in five (82%) company execs say they are less likely to value human employees after using AI tools, positioning human workers as secondary assets after more capable systems.

This sentiment differs from the current state of affairs, whereby 60% of the 2,850 surveyed senior execs agreed humans still lead work operations with AI merely serving as a productivity booster.

The difference could imply that, while humans remain integral today, managers may place less of an emphasis on the human workforce in the future as AI gets more work done autonomously.

AI is impacting how much top managers value their human workers

The shift likely positions humans as AI managers, rather than administrative workers, with two in three (69%) now spending more time than ever before monitoring and reviewing AI-generated work. The sense of a lack of trust still lingers, too, with only 23% having total confidence in AI's accuracy and 61% worries about legal accuracy when using AI on sensitive documents.

However, while some execs see AI as a human replacer, many others are still dissatisfied with their returns. Three-quarters (73%) say ROI has fallen short of expectations, with 16% even reporting negative ROI. As a result, around seven in 10 execs say they're prepared to cut AI budgets this year if goals are not met.

Separately, Gartner VP Analyst Padraig Byrne explained, "AI is everywhere, but most organizations are still figuring out how to monitor and trust these systems."

Giving a sneak peak into where companies might be getting it wrong, the research firm implied that those building AI agents without strong semantic and contextual data foundations are most likely to see hallucinations, unreliable outputs and biases.

Together, the two reports indicate that while execs are increasingly seeing AI as unavoidable, many are still struggling to trust it.

Looking ahead, Gartner calls for the implementation of model monitoring policies to provide quite quality metrics and an increased focus on infrastructure to handle high-volume model telemetry.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/most-executives-admit-using-ai-makes-them-value-human-workers-less

This might only apply to software engineering, or even certain departments, it's hard to be sure.

But if you're using any of the AI tools, especially Cursor, they come with dashboards to tell management how tokens you're using, how much of your code is AI written, etc.

They are monitoring this at the Sr Director level and above.

I'm already hearing stories of managers and directors being forced to justify to their bosses why they should keep otherwise good employees who's token usage isn't high.

Of course, Cigna has to pay for the tokens. The AI companies have us (and most of the industry) convinced we need to give them as much money as possible by using as many tokens as possible. It's as ridiculous as a for-profit electric company convincing you to waste electricity.

I think most of the managers know how d-mb this is. But it's not like managers and directors aren't also being let go. Even if they think this is d-mb, your manager is going to go along with it.. They already gave rid of the ones who wouldn't.

That's not to say there aren't still some good managers taking care of their employees as well as they can given the circumstances.

For example, if someone gives you training, or has to learn something new, and then you get laid off, you might think that was d-mb and a waste of company resources. Sometimes that is a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing. But sometimes that's your manager doing what they can give you the skills they think you'll need in your next job after they're forced to lay you off.

So much work suddenly come altogether, and the leads are expecting us to handle 2x 3x (only workload, not $$$) work with AI.... lol, and the layoff never stops.

https://www.foxnews.com/tech/ai-layoffs-may-backfiring-companies
anyhow the article says AI related RIFs may not be payng off...

Gartner found many companies cutting workers while adopting AI are not seeing stronger ROI (ok, as expected) and the better results come from using AI to help employees work faster and smarter.

The main point is that layoffs can free up budget but cos still need skilled people... clean data, and human judgment to make AI useful...

New focus on expanded documentation they say. Do they think we are id--ts? Just ask us to directly train the AI that is meant to replace us, why don'tcha?

They have brought in three bigwigs from Microsoft and Google - come on. We know what they are here for, and it is disgusting.

I hope folks see what's coming and prepare.

WiseTech Global is cutting approximately 2,000 jobs. The company is reducing its global workforce by nearly 30%. The logistics software company attributes these reductions to AI capabilities. CEO Zubin Appoo stated manual coding is no longer the core engineering act. The stock market reacted positively, with shares jumping 11.1%.

https://cryptobriefing.com/wisetech-layoffs-ai-workforce-reduction/

Project management firm ClickUp laid off 22% of its employees. CEO Zeb Evans stated this was a deliberate restructuring, not a cost-saving measure. The company is reorganizing its operations around artificial intelligence. Remaining employees could see annual salary bands up to $1 million. Evans believes other companies will also adopt similar proactive changes.

https://www.ndtvprofit.com/business/clickup-layoffs-startup-cuts-22-workforce-despite-strongest-business-ceo-explains-why-11530884

Acrisure is implementing significant layoffs across its operations. The company will reduce its workforce by 11%. This impacts approximately 2,250 employees. Technology advancements, AI, and digital platforms are cited as reasons. The layoffs will begin this week and continue through 2027.

https://coverager.com/acrisure-announces-layoffs/

California aims to lead in artificial intelligence regulation. Experts warn AI will both displace and create jobs. Governor Gavin Newsom signed an executive order on Thursday. This order prepares the state for an AI-driven economy. It includes tracking job impacts, worker protections, and training programs.

https://abc7news.com/post/california-eyes-ai-regulation-gov-newsom-orders-new-workforce-protections-amid-job-shifts-mass-layoffs/19147015/

There’s a lot of buzz lately about using AI tools to dodge getting cut. But is this really happening? If you’re relying on AI tools, shouldn’t you be the one getting replaced?

My AVP took my file and ran it through Ask ATT to give me an action plan. You were already worthless Boomer- your use of technology is embarrassing. It’s the AVPs and up that need to go. I am selling to the customer- what value are you brining?????

Teradata used to pride themselves on work life balance and of caring about employees and families. We have always pushed people hard at least in the teams where I have worked but there was also concern for your well-being. The leadership has changed this culture completely. Now you are never doing enough. Never working enough hours. Never using AI enough. Is this to weed people out?

Classic corp-stack maneuvr.... Print record numbers, invoke AI... Then, purge the meat-layer, and tell the survivors the system is "more agile." The optics are vintage late-capital firmware.

So, silicon gets fed, humans get reclassed as drag. Somewhere a dashboard turned red to green and called it progress...

Has Al increased the probability for layoffs at Oxy?

Just read this…. That is all I’m going to say.

https://nypost.com/2026/05/21/business/jamie-dimon-says-jpmorgan-will-hire-more-ai-braniacs-fewer-bankers/

Not directly connected to Oracle but many companies in the industry are going this way. The world has changed this year…
—-
ZEB EVANS (CEO - ClickUp)

Today we reduced headcount by 22%. The business is the strongest it's ever been. So I think it's important to be direct about what I'm seeing and why.

First, I made this decision and I own it. I did it because the way to operate at the highest level of productivity is changing, and to win the future, ClickUp needs to change with it.

Second, this wasn't about cutting costs. Most savings from this change will flow directly back into the people who stay. We'll be introducing million-dollar salary bands. If you create outsized impact using AI, you'll be paid outside of traditional bands.

Most importantly, I have the deepest gratitude for those affected. We're doing this from a position of strength specifically so we can take care of people properly. Everyone affected receives a package aimed at honoring their contributions and easing the transition.

I only see two options: wait for this to play out gradually in the market or be honest about what I'm seeing and act proactively.

THE 100X ORGANIZATION
The primary change is that we're restructuring around what I call 100x org. The goal is 100x output. The roles required to build at the highest level are fundamentally different than they were a year ago.

Incremental improvements to existing systems won't get us there. We need new ones. That means creating enough disruption to rebuild rather than iterate on what's already broken.

The common narrative is that AI makes everyone more productive. It doesn't. Many of the workflows of today, if left unchanged, create bottlenecks in AI systems.

These roles will evolve. But waiting for that to happen naturally means falling behind now.

The 100x org is actually heavily dependent on people - infinitely more than today. This is only possible with 10x people that have embraced and adopted new ways of working.

THE BUILDERS, AGENT MANAGERS, AND FRONT-LINERS

— THE BUILDERS: 10X ENGINEERS
I don't think most companies have internalized what's actually happening with AI in engineering. The common narrative is that AI makes all engineers more productive. That may be true in isolation, but at an organization level - that is the farthest thing from reality.

Here's what we've validated recently at ClickUp: the great engineers, the ones who can orchestrate, architect, and review, are becoming 100x engineers. They're not writing code. They're directing agents that write code. The skill is judgment.

AI makes the best engineers wildly more productive, and everyone else using AI slows these engineers down.
Think about it - the bottlenecks are (1) orchestration - telling AI what to do, and (2) reviewing - what AI did. Everything is leapfrogged and no longer needed.
So who do you want orchestrating and reviewing code?

And how do you want your best engineers to spend their time?

If your best engineers are spending time reviewing other people's code, then this is inherently an inefficient bottleneck. These engineers can review their agent's code much faster than reviewing human code.

The new world is about enabling your 10x engineers to become 100x.

The wrong strategy is to push every engineer to use infinite tokens. Companies doing this are celebrating 500% more pull requests. But customer outcomes don't match the volume of code being generated.

I call this the great reckoning of AI coding, and every company will face this soon if not already.

More code is just another bottleneck to the best engineers, and ultimately to your company's impact as well.

— THE BUILDERS: 10X PRODUCT MANAGERS
Product management and design roles are merging.

Designers that have customer focus, become more like product managers.

And product managers that have intuition for UX become more like designers.

The bottleneck of user research is gone. It takes us just one mention of an agent to kickoff research and analyze results.

The bottleneck of product design iteration is also gone. The product builder iterates on their own, along with agents and skills that ensure alignment with quality and strategy.

Also controversial today - I believe that the wrong strategy is to have your PMs shipping code - that just introduces another bottleneck that the best engineers will waste their time on.

To be clear, PMs should be coding but they should do this in a playground to iterate, validate, and scope. That code should not go to production.

Everything outside of managing systems, orchestrating AI, and reviewing output becomes a bottleneck.
That's why the other roles that are critical along with these are the systems managers (to reduce bottlenecks) along with a bottleneck you can't replace - customer meeting time.

— THE SYSTEM MANAGERS
Ironically, the people that automate their jobs with AI will always have a job. They become owners of the AI systems - agent managers. We have many examples of these people at ClickUp.

The underlying systems in which we operate are absolutely critical to get right. I think most companies are delusional to think they can iterate on existing systems and compete in this new world.

You must create enough disruption so that old systems are deprecated entirely. If there's any definition for 'AI native' that's what it is.

— THE FRONT-LINERS
In a world that will become saturated with AI communication, the human touch will matter more than anything to customers.

This is a bottleneck that you shouldn't replace - even when agents are high enough quality to do video meetings.

One-on-one meeting time with customers is something that shouldn't be automated. The systems around the meetings should be - so that front-liners spend nearly 100% of their time with customers.

REWARDING 100X IMPACT
In a world where companies are able to do so much more with less, where does that excess money go?
In our case, much of the savings in this new operating model will flow directly back to those that enabled it.

We must reward people that create productivity accordingly. This aligns incentives on both sides. Plus, in a world where your best people create 100x impact, you can't afford to lose them.

You should aim to retain these employees for decades. The context they have and their ability to efficiently orchestrate and review will be nearly impossible to replace.

Compensation bands of today should be thrown out the door. We're introducing $1 million cash/year salary bands with a path available to nearly everyone in the company if they produce 100x impact by creating or managing AI systems.

THE FUTURE
Nearly every company will make changes like these. The ones that do it proactively will define what comes next.

The future is not fewer people. It's different work, new roles, and better rewards for those who embrace it. We're already seeing entirely new roles emerge, like Agent Managers, that didn't exist a year ago.

ClickUp is positioning to lead this shift, not just internally, but for our customers too. I've never been more certain about where we're headed.

https://x.com/dj_curfew/status/2057522382315929802

Everyone is watching the layoffs but only some are paying attention to the real issue -hiring has slowed dramatically...

The headlines make it sound like AI is eliminating jobs overnight. The actual labor data tells a more tricky story. Layoffs are still relatively close to pre-pandemic norms. What has changed is that companies are hiring less aggressively, which makes it much harder for people entering the market, changing jobs, or recovering from layoffs.

There is also a growing amount of what even industry leaders are calling “AI washing” - companies attributing cuts to AI when the underlying causes may include overhiring, cost pressure, restructuring, or shareholder expectations.

That does not mean AI is not changing work. It clearly is. But the broader employment picture right now looks more like a low-hire, low-fire environment than a mass AI replacement event.

The practical takeaway for companies and employees is probably this: focus less on the headline layoffs and more on adaptability, skill alignment, and where actual hiring demand still exists.

Source: Washington Post article on the current labor market and AI-related layoffs.
https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/articles/what-layoffs-hide-about-the-real-problem-with-the-job-market-105409943.html

Comment on how you feel being isolated, while others wait their turn for next round. This happens every round, laid off employees dropped off the bus, while ELT preaches Cisco impressive leadership, AI prowess and caring for employees.

Given recent townhall. The idea of shifting from engineers and managers to AI Builders as a blanket term to cover both engineering and managers as one. How are others feeling about this? Shifting team sizes to teams of 2-4 with a goal of trying to get code to production in 5 days. Does anyone else think it’s problematic? Team size changes meaning more layoffs to come? Anyone feeling as if there is a big disconnect from what upper management envisions and what goes on a day to day? Do we see quality control dropping and heavier workloads that will be “solved” because of AI? Anyone feeling let down by leadership?

Acrisure is laying off 2,250 employees. The layoffs reduce the company's workforce by 11%. CEO Greg Williams announced the cuts in a letter to employees. The decision is driven by advancements in artificial intelligence. Layoffs began Wednesday and will continue into next year.

https://www.fox17online.com/news/local-news/grand-rapids/acrisure-to-cut-2-250-jobs-amid-rise-in-artificial-intelligence