You’ve probably felt that chill. The one that runs down your spine when you see the headline: “Company X lays off hundreds to focus on AI.” It’s a familiar pattern now. A company announces a big layoff, and right next to the numbers, there’s the magic phrase: “prioritizing AI.” It sounds noble. It sounds forward-thinking. But it’s almost always a lie.
This week, Monday.com joined the club. The project management software company laid off hundreds of employees, citing a pivot to AI. The official story? They’re doubling down on artificial intelligence to make their product smarter, faster, more efficient. The unofficial story? They’re using AI as a convenient smokescreen for opportunistic cost-cutting. And they’re not alone.
Let’s be clear: “Every time a CEO says ‘we’re pivoting to AI,’ a human being just became a line item.” The decision to fire people isn’t driven by some sudden technological breakthrough. It’s driven by a tight market, investor pressure, and the need to show a quarterly number that makes Wall Street happy. AI is the excuse that sounds like a strategy.
Here’s the paradox: These companies are building tools meant to increase human productivity. But they’re doing it by aggressively eliminating the humans who build and use those tools. The same people who wrote the code, tested the features, and sold the product are now being told their jobs are redundant because of the very technology they helped create. It’s a cruel loop.
The real twist? “The magic words ‘AI integration’ are now the corporate equivalent of ‘we need to cut costs’ — but with better PR.” Investors hear “AI” and they get excited. They imagine a leaner, cheaper workforce powered by algorithms. They don’t ask hard questions about whether the AI actually delivers. They just see the stock price bump after the layoff announcement. And the cycle repeats.
One comment on the Monday.com news summed it up perfectly: “Monday.com has achieved AGI internally.” That’s sarcasm, but it’s also the truth. No company has suddenly invented a general intelligence that makes hundreds of employees obsolete. What they have invented is a new language for firing people. A language that sounds like progress but reeks of opportunism.
So what does this mean for you? “Don’t be fooled. Your job isn’t being automated out of existence. It’s being sacrificed to a narrative that makes investors clap.” And that’s a much harder problem to solve. Because you can’t upskill your way out of a corporate decision to use you as a scapegoat for a failed strategy. You can’t reskill your way out of being a cost line item on a spreadsheet.
The next time you see a layoff announcement wrapped in the language of AI, pause. Ask yourself: Did the company just discover a new technology, or did it just discover a new way to save money? The answer will tell you everything about the future of work — and the willingness of leaders to trade human lives for a better story.
FAQ
Q: Are companies really using AI as an excuse for layoffs, or is it a legitimate strategy?
A: In many cases, the 'AI pivot' is a rhetorical tool to justify layoffs. While some companies genuinely shift resources, the pattern of announcing mass layoffs alongside vague AI promises—without specific product changes—strongly suggests cost-cutting disguised as innovation. The TechCrunch report on Monday.com is a textbook example.
Q: What should I do if I work at a company that announces a 'focus on AI' layoff?
A: Update your resume immediately. But also, watch for specifics: Do they name concrete AI products or timelines? If not, assume the layoff is purely financial. Network aggressively, document your contributions, and be prepared for a second wave. The corporate narrative will not protect you.
Q: Isn't AI actually increasing efficiency, so some layoffs are inevitable and even beneficial?
A: AI can increase efficiency, but the scale and timing of these layoffs rarely match real productivity gains. The evidence shows companies are using AI as a cover to cut costs in a tight market, not because the technology has made roles obsolete. The real inefficiency is in the decision-making that treats humans as interchangeable parts.