Tens of thousands of layoffs are being blamed on AI. What are companies actually getting?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Oct. 30, 2025, 5:00 AM EDTBy Rob Wile and Jared Perlo
Some of the largest companies in America have begun capping or reducing their head counts, blaming the promise of productivity with artificial intelligence for their decisions.
Yet, so far, there is uneven evidence that the promised cost-savings from AI are actually worth what companies are putting into it.
This leaves some experts questioning whether AI could be serving as a fig leaf for companies that are laying off employees for old-fashioned reasons, such as financial underperformance or global economic uncertainty.
"It's much easier for a company to say, 'We are laying workers off because we're realizing AI-related efficiencies' than to say 'We're laying people off because we're not that profitable or bloated, or facing a slowing economic environment, etc,'" David Autor, a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote in an email to NBC News.
"Whether or not AI were the reason, you'd be wise to attribute the credit/blame to AI," wrote Autor, an expert on AI's impact on workers.
This week, Amazon announced it had begun a reorganization that would result in the elimination of 14,000 roles — and said AI was a leading cause.
"The world is changing quickly," Amazon Senior Vice President Beth Galetti wrote Tuesday. "This generation of AI is the most transformative technology we've seen since the Internet, and it's enabling companies to innovate much faster than ever before."
Yet a few hours later, a different Amazon representative tried to downplay the role that AI played in the layoff decisions.
"AI is not the reason behind the vast majority of reductions," said the representative, who requested anonymity because she was not authorized to give her name.
"Last year, we set out to strengthen our culture and teams by reducing layers," among other measures, she said. "The reductions we're sharing today are a continuation of this work."
The representative declined to comment on the apparent mismatch between this second statement about AI and Amazon's earlier comments.
But that disparity — coming from a company as large and disciplined as Amazon — highlights how difficult it can be for the public to verify what companies say about AI and its role in personnel decisions.
AI's elusive returns
Amazon joins plenty of other companies in justifying recent job cuts by pointing to AI.
Walmart recently signaled that it intends to keep headcount flat over the next several years, largely as a result of AI.
Goldman Sachs announced a fresh round of layoffs this month, saying it planned to reduce human roles that AI could potentially perform.
Salesforce recently reduced its workforce by 4,000, citing "the benefits and efficiencies" of AI.
One might think that these companies were all seeing huge benefits from AI, the kind of returns that would make these difficult — and expensive — layoffs worthwhile.
Indeed, the number of companies that report being focused on AI's return on investment has surged in recent months, according to data from AlphaSense, an AI research firm.
So where, exactly, are all these benefits? That's where it gets tricky.
Recent studies have found significant limits on the productivity of AI, at least in its current manifestation.
Out of 1,250 firms surveyed by Boston Consulting Group for a September report, 60% said they had seen "minimal revenue and cost gains despite substantial investment" in AI.
Only 10% of the organizations involved in a similar Deloitte survey said they were getting "significant return on investment from agentic AI," or systems that can make decisions beyond simply following prompts.
Nonetheless, more large American companies than ever are using, investing in and measuring the business impact of generative AI, according to a new report from UPenn's Wharton School and GBK Collective.
But like the other surveys, the Wharton report shows mixed results. "It's great if you can shave 20 minutes off an email or half an hour reading a report. But that's not going to leapfrog anything," said Stefano Puntoni, faculty co-director of Human-AI Research at Wharton and an author of the study.
Performance issues?
Many of the same companies that are making layoff announcements while touting AI investments have also been under increased financial pressure.
Amazon's layoffs announcement comes ahead of its third quarter earnings results, set to be released Thursday.
While analysts expect improvement, there is growing concern about increased competition for Amazon's AWS cloud platform from AI. After hitting an all-time high in January, shares of Amazon have been largely flat this year and are about 6% below that record.
Meanwhile, Salesforce shares are down about 29% from a December 2024 high. Some analysts have questioned whether implementing more AI will be enough to stave off the threat posed by AI to Salesforce's core product lineup.
"No matter what the current state of the company, the narrative is negative and just about impossible to disprove," wrote Jackson Ader, an analyst with KeyBanc Capital financial group.
Some of the companies enacting job cuts are simply looking to rein in spending — including firms at the core of the AI boom.
Last week, Facebook-parent Meta announced it was cutting 600 roles in its AI unit over concerns that it had become "bloated."
Rival Microsoft has announced three separate rounds of layoffs this year, and says it is looking to cut costs elsewhere in the company in order to pay for its massive AI investments.
Yet even firms far from Silicon Valley are getting swept up.
UPS said Tuesday it had eliminated 34,000 roles from its operational division, which includes drivers and package handlers — a 70% increase from its previous target. UPS also plans to reduce its reliance on seasonal hires and significantly cut back on vehicle leases.
These changes are "powered by automation," the company said — corporate shorthand for AI.
UPS is "freeing up our network to grow in the best parts of the market," a spokesperson said. "AI and robotics help to make jobs safer, while also reducing repetitive tasks."
Tags
Who is online
114 visitors
A.O.C. was right ... again!
That felt good ...
TRUMP .....
NEVER TOLD THE TRUTH
NEVER PLAYED FAIR
NEVER STOPPED CONNING
NEVER STOPPED EVADING TAXES
NEVER STOPPED ABUSING WOMEN
NEVER STOPPED TRYING TO STEAL THE 2020 ELECTION
NEVER STOPPED SOUNDING LIKE AN IDIOT
The major downside of AI is that it absolutely will reduce the net number of human jobs. It is a serious issue and will force a paradigm change in how societies operate.
How does a society adapt to a condition where 20% unemployment is the norm? Serious people need to deal with this.
I do not see Congress able to even remotely come close to a migration path. They cannot even handle healthcare and have no idea how to be fiscally responsible. Worse, they have put us so far into debt that a major initiative like this cannot be funded by conventional means.
But AI will not stop; it is a force of nature and we will need to adapt.
The world never went back to horse and buggy after the automobile, I don't see us going back to non-AI. We've been on this path since the introduction of electricity.
Congress can't even get it together to secure personal data. Many of them don't understand how to setup their iPhones, let alone understand what AI is and isn't.
A related quote:
Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself.
--Mark Twain
You're right. The time has come to put some of our "wonder boys and girls" searching for political relevance out to pasture. AI has changed the state of play. . . and we need new representatives of the people to protect us from professional ignorance in high places.
The unemployment rate will be much higher than 20%.
Yes, eventually.
So is nuclear destruction.
So was the adoption of electricity. I'm not saying it's right, or wrong. It just is. Most people don't understand what current AI technology is, let alone how to deal with its implications.
The 'ultimate' downside for AI is when 'radicals' invest the time to sabotage it. (Not saying that it should happen. . . but, when people can not work. . . it becomes a matter of a missing purpose in life. . . and emotions ranging 'off the charts' as the saying credited to the movie Friday goes:
Big Worm: "Playing with my money is like playing with my emotions."
And let's face it .... it isn't the usual manual laborers that normally get replaced. This effects people with college educations.
When AI can do a better job of examining an x-ray, we no longer need high paid technicians to do the job.
No wonder there is such concern.
Yes it does. It affects people across the board.
Plumbers, electricians, etc. will still be needed for the foreseeable future due to the unique skills and operational situations that are extremely difficult to replace with robots.
Knowledge workers (manning computers to handle transactions, lower-level coders, legal assistants, customer support, etc. will be easily replaced. This is already well in process.
Currently, I use AI to write code when it is appropriate. It is amazing. I have developed (for years) a Karate Tournament tool in VBA (chosen to enable others to more easily maintain the code). VBA is replete with idiosyncrasies and is a horribly weak language so the coding is a pain in the ass. I just gave ChatGPT a complex specification for an algorithm that required the development of two classes and has very specific rules. The algorithm merges (if possible) multiple competitive divisions and detects gaps. ChatGPT implemented a perfect algorithm for me. Just friggin' amazing. So instead of a programmer spending a day developing and debugging, ChatGPT produced a perfect result in seconds. A great tool and the result will be that lower-level programmers (not so true for Computer Scientists, software engineers, etc.) are an obsolescent (becoming obsolete) job function.
The technology is already here for that. It is now just a matter of adoption.
What, you think there is a concern simply because college-educated jobs are at risk? Not everyone is so driven (cynical, emotional) by class and education. Some actually care about the nation and its people as a whole. A much better way to operate IMO.
I think that many college graduates today feel that life is unfair. They may be turning to Socialism.
I am so sick of people putting forth half-baked, unfounded hypotheses. Most everyone already knows that life is unfair; always has been. Was much worse in the past.
What does 'turning to socialism' mean in your world view?
That sounds like another half-baked, unfounded hypotheses. How do you know that, especially when it comes to those that were told for the past 70 years that all they needed was a good education to ensure a prosperous life?
One would have to be profoundly naive to believe that life has ever been fair.
Many of them think their starting pay for whatever useless piece of paper they have should be in the 6 figures. They have a feeling of being entitled and if they don't get what they feel they deserve they may turn to something that they feel will make it more fair for them. I guess just getting a college degree doesn't mean you are smart.
Good point. That is the only reason that some of these majors even exist. Get a degree in basket weaving and make it for life.
Some of those same people worked on AI projects.
What makes you think earning a degree is no more than a useless piece of paper?
What degree did you earn that you find so worthless?
Who do you think tells people that it does not matter what you major in, or what university you attended, or the grades you earned, or the work experience you had as an apprentice while earning your degree?
People who get degrees in art,literature, etc. will be hard pressed to put their education to prosperous use. But that is NOT true for most degrees.
I didn't say all.
Some colleges have degrees that they know will be worthless
You did not write ‘a few’ either. Your unqualified post suggests that degrees are useless. If you recognized that the super majority of degrees are useful, your post would contradict your belief.
Did you get a useless degree? Do you have any credible foundation to speak on?
No shit.
Pretty much what I noted.
Most degrees, however, are geared at providing marketable skills. They are not useless. And those few that do not still develop the student’s mind! Higher education is net good and delivers lifelong benefits.
I said many. Stop putting words in my mouth.
There are plenty of useless degrees
For decades the blue collar world has dealt with loss of jobs because greedy ceo’s and shareholders, shitty trade deals and the influx of illegals while the white collar world remained mostly immune from those issues. Looks like the tables are turning.
How many of them obtained garbage degrees for "specialties" that are on the low end of the employment and pay spectrum. Some of their problems are self-inflicted.
A cursory look at the situation with the government shutdown, and historical records should be a glaring example of how flawed that system is. But there are some that can't quite grasp that reality.
There are plenty of examples of that.
Did you get a useless degree? Do you have any credible foundation to speak on?
Of course, but they are a tiny minority of the degrees handed out.
And even credible degrees (not basket weaving, not crap from fake colleges) from a credible university that do not produce marketable credentials develop the mind.
Do you know what it takes to do the work to achieve a university degree? Do you know how it shapes the mind and how that benefits the student for the rest of their lives?
Credible foundation to tell what a useless degree looks like? Maybe they should make a degree in spotting unless degrees.
Yes
Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. I believe less now than in days past
Earning a credible degree from a credible university (not cheating, actually doing the work) illustrates a sound work ethic and ability to deal with complex topics.
A stupid person is likely not to fairly (i.e. genuinely) earn a degree from a credible university.
By the way, that does not mean that those without credible university degrees are not smart. There are plenty of brilliant people who choose paths that do not require a degree. Just in case you try that slimy twist.
What credible degree from a credible university did you earn that gives you this understanding?
I know people who beg their kids to go into the trades instead of college. There is something to that if all you want to do is make money. I have a 25 year old nephew who does not have a college degree, is a building engineer in a building on Michigan Avenue, and makes 100,000 dollars a year. He had to do about a year of union sponsored classwork at a community college. And he had to "know someone".
If all the kids go into the trades all that will do is leave us with too many electricians, plumbers, pipe fitters, and iron workers.
The 'white collar world' (since you want to make such a distinction) is certainly NOT immune from this. Surely you have witnessed massive layoffs of 'white collar' workers by companies and governments. The dynamics are different from 'blue collar' but they are in no way immune. Also, salaried employees often must work their asses off (many hours) and are dealing in a highly competitive, stressful environment. So it is not some heavenly pleasure.
Finally, most of the 'white collar' workers are ordinary middle to middle/upper income individuals. Paying shitloads of taxes (progressive tax rate) and dealing with the same basic life problems as 'blue collar' workers.
The ones who you should be directing your angst are the business executives ... not the bulk of 'white collar' workers.
And if you have a problem with shareholders then if you have invested in any company (e.g. through a 401k) then you are one of those shareholders. Shareholders invest to make a profit. I am sure that is what you want from all of your investments.
I have 3 degrees but I don't need any of them to tell me what a worthless degree looks like. Maybe they should make a degree in spotting unless degrees for those that only a degree will make them qualified to talk about a useless degree.
The trades are a fine career path. One of my nephews, for example, trained to be a fireman. He is now a Captain and has a very promising future. And, most importantly, this is what he wanted to do. Perfect! Plumbers, HVAC, electricians, etc. are doing difficult (manually) and challenging (intellectually) work. There is nothing easy about planning and executing the plumbing for a home ... much less a commercial property. All good and we should be happy that people want to pursue those careers.
Most of my immediate family are in the construction / remodeling business. Again, this is so much more involved than merely being able to hammer a nail. And who understands what it takes nowadays to be good in the concrete business? It is far more complicated than merely setting up forms, pouring, finishing, and break-down/clean-up. It is a skill that society continues to need.
So many examples, ...
And none of these require a degree. All of them are great fields IMO if that is what someone wants to do.
The people I feel sorry for are those who made poor life choices and wound up taking a job merely to survive. Although there are exceptions, but I suspect most line manufacturing jobs are not held by people who really want to do repetitive tasks 8 hours a day. Unless they take the initiative to get educated in a marketable skill (tough to do while working 40 hours a week), they are stuck in that job and must rely upon the union to keep their income ahead of inflation.
Then you should already understand the value of a credible degree from a credible university. You should also already know that the vast majority of people who have earned such a degree benefit from the education and the cultivation of their mind required to get that degree was net good for them no matter what they chose to do. That the degree is not a useless piece of paper.
Someone who knew this would unlikely make an unqualified claim about useless degrees as if that were the norm.
In the real world, technicians do NOT examine x-ray results for diagnoses. Technicians take the x-rays and ensure they are of high quality, and the results are diagnosed by radiologists who are specialized licensed medical doctors. None of that will ever change.
“The 'white collar world' (since you want to make such a distinction) is certainly NOT immune from this”
Yeah, that’s what i said.
“The ones who you should be directing your angst are the business executives ... not the bulk of 'white collar' workers.”
I have no idea what that means and if you go back and read my post you’ll agree.
Except it is not an unqualified claim. Here is an example from kiplinger. There are many many more.
You could also try googling worthless college degrees
Of course. Many have been sold a horrific lie and cheered on to their own ruin. I'd be bitter, too.
That article supports the claim that the expected salary from a degree varies by the subject matter.
Of course! I never suggested otherwise.
The article does not, in any way, support your claim @2.4.6:
This is an unqualified criticism of degrees in general. You do not make the point that some degrees will result in lower pay and others higher. You categorically speak of degrees as "useless piece of paper". It is that ridiculous notion that I have rebutted.
I have NOT suggested that everyone with a degree will get the same salary or that a degree guarantees a good salary or anything remotely close to that.
You are arguing a strawman ... again.
You are ignoring facts. Try the Google I suggested or even look at degrees at Columbia. My point all along has been there are many worthless degrees. You have yet to refute that claim
Coming from the doom & gloom corner, THAT IS HILARIOUSLY IRONIC!
You are happy that the 'white collar world' will get hit by AI. And you indicate that they deserve it.
I am suggesting that it is a tiny minority of the 'white collar world' that deserves your angst ... business executives (and owners).
My point is that the vast majority of degrees are not worthless.
It is obvious that not all degrees are worthwhile, but most (by a long shot) are. And, as I noted, even if the degrees (majors) do not yield marketable skills, the educational process is great training for the mind ... something that can pay off for one's lifetime.
So I will say that of course, not all degrees are worthwhile. That is not anything new. It is as meaningful as stating that not all salaries will be equal, that weather differs by state, etc. It is obvious.
Why would I want to refute an obvious truth? If you want to backtrack and say that this is all you meant then have at it.
“You are happy that the 'white collar world' will get hit by AI. And you indicate that they deserve it.”
No, i have no idea where you got that from. and i have no idea where you get “angst” from my comment.
Good grief:
You note blue-collar pain and claim that the white-collar world largely felt no pain. That is not true; as I noted. But you think so and your post illustrates that you think it is good that 'the tables are turning'.
The white-collar world (as you see it) is not your enemy and has its own share of problems. Predominantly, these are working class people too. They are just working different kinds of jobs.
The executives make the decisions. They set the priorities. They make the deals. They tell the blue and white collar workers what to do.
If you think unfairness has been had, then blame the executives (and politicians!!). Don't act as though the white collar workers are now finally getting what they deserve.
Lol, i simply noted that the blue collar world has been dealing with massive amounts of job losses for decades through shitty trade deals, illegals, and greedy ceo’s and shareholders while the white collar world has mostly been immune from this. And now potentially massive job losses threaten the white collar world. That’s all. There is no glee, there is no angst. You are reading things into my comment that is not there.
”You note blue-collar pain and claim that the white-collar world largely felt no pain. That is not true; as I noted.”
The blue collar world has lost millions and millions of jobs just since 2000. White collar workers have not been subjected to losses like that, not even close.
”But you think so and your post illustrates that you think it is good that 'the tables are turning'.”
show me where i think it’s good or where i said it’s good.
”The white-collar world (as you see it) is not your enemy”
no shit, they need each other. White collar workers design a system, blue collar workers build it. Together they form a team. Now show me where i said the white collar world is my enemy.
“If you think unfairness has been had, then blame the executives (and politicians!!).”
I did. Didn’t you see where i said “loss of jobs because greedy ceo’s and shareholders, shitty trade deals and the influx of illegals”?
”Don't act as though the white collar workers are now finally getting what they deserve.”
again, show me where i “acted” that or am glad? You can’t show anything that i’ve asked in this post because you are reading into things that are not there.
And there you go again pitting white collar workers against blue collar workers. Apparently you do not even see what you are doing.
It is not the white collar workers who caused a loss of so many manufacturing jobs. It was largely the economics of capitalism which drives businesses to seek lower costs and, in this case, it meant going overseas. The other key factor is the lower costs of other nations to produce things like vehicles and making it hard for US automobile manufacturers to compete.
It is not good that white collar jobs are now being eliminated by AI. Sure, someone with a blue collar viewpoint will write posts that suggest that the time has now come for white collar workers (and then pretend that does not indicate approval).
The loss of jobs without suitable replacements (ideally new jobs that better make use of human talents) is a bad thing. The loss of manufacturing jobs resulted in a lot of blue collar workers losing rather great paying / great benefits jobs for monotonous, repetitive work. That is good for progress but bad for those individuals. Similarly the loss of white collar jobs is going to be bad for the individuals but good for progress. And unlike the past, there does not seem to be an avenue for creating new, more human-oriented, jobs to replace those lost.
It is a fundamental societal problem we face and it is serious.
So you making posts implying that now the white collar workers get to experience what blue collar workers experienced ignores the serious problem and implies that white collar workers deserve to lose their jobs because it happened to blue collar workers.
The problem is how a society continues with a system where one must work to live when the population continues to rise and the jobs are decreasing. But you want to harp on blue vs. white collar crap.
“And there you go again pitting white collar workers against blue collar workers.”
Where have i done that? I noted a fact.
”It is not the white collar workers who caused a loss of so many manufacturing jobs.”
no shit. If you could show me where i said that that’d be great, then we’d be getting somewhere, but you can’t so we’re stuck at getting no where.
”It is not good that white collar jobs are now being eliminated by AI.”
no shit, again. Maybe you’d be so kind as to where i said or implied that?
”It is a fundamental societal problem we face and it is serious.”
i agree 100%.
”and implies that white collar workers deserve to lose their jobs because it happened to blue collar workers.”
you bias is allowing you to read into things that aren’t there.
” But you want to harp of blue vs. white collar crap.”
you’re the one doing that. I made a simple factual statement and you’re blowing it up into something that is not there. I know you’re biased, but come on.
Still doesn't mean they are smart. A lot of times it means they can regurgitate what they were told with zero critical thinking skills needed.
The majority of university graduates have necessarily developed critical thinking skills. And graduating from a credible university with an above average [earned] GPA generally correlates with what would be considered intelligence.
That does not mean that there are not plenty of intelligent people who chose to not earn a degree (or could not for some reason). As I noted, someone who can plumb/wire a home, be a fire captain, run a successful small business, etc. would almost certainly be considered intelligent.
It seems all the protesting on college campuses promoting Hamas proves that statement is true.
I wouldn't equate protesting Israel's war in Gaza with being pro Hamas. Yet you do...
How about applying the critical thinking?
Out of all college students, what percentage do you imagine were promoting Hamas?
( Hint to help in your critical analysis: there are over 19 million current US college students. )
Hasty Generalization fallacy.
Yea, from the river to the see is just a football chant. Making Jewish students hide in a library afraid to leave is just because the protesters want to make sure they get better grades.
I don't think that's axiomatic at all anymore.
I do.
Agree. If anything it has gotten worse. I went to a college graduation last year and all the speakers had left wing ideology. Talking to many of the graduates after there was not a critical thinker to be found.
Reminds me of the Chris Williamson quote:
But that's not actually why I question the idea that a degree is somehow an indicator of critical thinking skills. That stems from a combination of factors, including the evolution of the higher education industry and its financial incentives, the resulting general reduction in educational standards, and the observable behavior of college educated people.
Critical thinking is nearly impossible without reasonable comprehension of mathematics and hard sciences, which are no longer required for many students.
It is said that in 40 years we've gone from teaching Greek and Latin in high school to teaching remedial English in college. They're not wrong.
I wonder how many potential employers believe that?
Those who require a degree likely do.
Every major technological breakthrough temporarily reduces the number of human jobs. Historically those people have been transitioned to new roles reasonably quickly.
Why would 20% unemployment be a "norm"? The next generation of Americans will be AI proficient. They will simply have different jobs.
Why would it be the job of Congress to develop a migration path? The least qualified people on earth to develop any sort of plan would be Congress. It would be better assigned to the kindergarten class at the elementary school around the corner from my house. Congress will simply listen to the loudest idiots and/or the biggest donors.
True
I wish that were true with AI, but it is unlikely. AI is and has the current potential to replace jobs at a lightning pace and the scope is vast; covering every industry. Past technological breakthroughs were far more narrow in scope and much slower deployment. And they were unable to get past language (communication) barriers, judgment and basic management. Not so true with AI and AI is still at its inception. As you like to say, the math does not work.
The new jobs that AI will create will be at higher levels of abstraction (management and engineering). Very few compared to the jobs it will obsolete. Given AI bots can automate entire workflows (see Robotic Process Automation), AI robots are replacing / substantially gutting entire departments. Customer support is already taking major hits.
Ironically IT is also taking a hit. There are myriad tasks performed by lower-level IT staff (typically called 'coders') that are no longer needed. AI tools can very reliably diagnose and fix production problems. They can read code, spot bugs and provide the fix. They can generate new code just by specifying language, technical requirements, performance metrics, etc. Not just trivial or common algorithms, but custom, unique functionality. This is a staggering blow to people whose job is merely to write/test/deploy code to perform some specific task.
The legal profession uses all sorts of paralegals, etc. to do legal research, prepare briefs, etc. Much of this is on the chopping block replaced by verification by real attorneys. Virtually all of the lower level marketing content generation (including images) as well as idea creation, market research, campaign creation and monitoring (on and on) can be done today with AI.
In general knowledge workers and jobs like bookkeeping and even much of accounting do not require human beings. AI circumvents the communication gap between a human speaking natural language, written documents in various forms, video, audio, etc. and makes this information available for consideration. It can bring forth a masterful base of knowledge in any subject matter and apply that to perform tasks. I consider the high-level functions of my CPA. This guy has always impressed me with his knowledge of the law, and knowledge of how to apply the changing law to the books and prepare honest taxes that take full advantage of the law given my complex financial situation. But AI can currently read my supplied tax materials, make use of tax law, and produce complex tax filings. While I am not quite ready to trade in my rock star CPA for an AI agent, there will be a time in the near future where that kind of choice will be real. With that, consider the impact on all those who work for my CPA and all of their counterparts in CPA firms across the nation. What are the jobs they turn to?
I do hope that we see all sorts of new opportunities for people, but I am concerned that this is simply not possible with the speed and scope of AI (especially with agentic AI evolving right now).
Because this is going to require a paradigm shift and without leadership at a national level, that will be very difficult.
I do not expect Congress to rise to the occasion, but the federal government has (in theory) the unique scope and control to lead the change.
One "recent" technology that seemed to break out in a big way before the widespread use of AI is robotics. A while back I did a search re: the use of robotics in factories. The results were amazing.
In many cases it looked like one industrial robot must've replaced several human workers.
Now we are looking at not a mechanical replacement (what robotics did and does to manufacturing) but a purely logical replacement. Robots are expensive, require maintenance, and —importantly— are physical constructs (machinery). AI replaces many jobs with software alone. No physical anything (other than more IT infrastructure). Thus it is much easier for an AI agent to replace an entire department. This translates into a much higher rate of job loss which makes it far more difficult to transition employees to other jobs (and for these other jobs to even manifest).
There is another segment of the workforce that is getting decimated, which is trucking. They are being replaced by foreign drivers and freight brokerage companies that are working for pennies on the dollar compared to the typical American born CDL driver.
That sounds like a classical business decision based on labor cost. That has been going on for decades.
What would you suppose is the solution?
Another issue (down the road) are autonomous trucks where drivers are not even required.
Remove every driver that is not in compliance with the laws governing CDL's. Strick enforcement of the laws for electronic logging. Strick enforcement of requirements for Training prior to taking the CDL examine, strict enforcement of the insurance requirements for Commercial vehicles on the roads. Make violations of these laws a felony!
I don't see a time where they have totally autonomous trucks, there are too many scenarios that commercial tractor and trailers come across to navigate without some human input.
There will be a point where autonomous vehicles (with far more senses than a human being) will be so superior to human drivers that there will be no debate on which is safer. Autonomous vehicles can be equipped with sensors that can process more than merely visible light (e.g. infrared) and thus have sight that is impossible for a human being. They will have better hearing, and even senses that human beings do not even possess such as radar. As for obstacles and 'scenarios', the progress even today with reinforcement learning has produced driving intelligence that is already arguably safer than a human being. More training and more rare fringe conditions will be covered as well.
It is inevitable.
I agree. That should be done already. Is it your opinion that low-paid, foreign drivers are incapable of being CDL compliant? Why would a trucking company not spend extra to ensure they have CDL compliant safe drivers ... especially if doing so ensures they have safe drivers at a lower cost?
And therein lies a/the problem: Congress is not flexible. And worse, it has chosen to squander its real value by channeling manufactured "culture wars" against living people/Others! They have taken their eye off 'industry' and now industry is faced with its own 'wildly' productive successes—without proper leadership from politicians.
Moreover, congress - a body of people - is elected to represent the human perspective in our society. . . and yet AI is about to run off with the 'people's 'prize.' Worse, while congress continues to 'milk' each other members of congress. . . the 'next' thing to come AFTER AI is already 'churning' and 'birthing' itself and more people will not work because of "It."
This is another example of a problem caused by overpopulation