Bloomberg just published a newsletter with the headline: "Will AI Take My Job? Experts Don't See Artificial Intelligence Cutting Roles Yet."
Cool headline. Very reassuring. Real comforting stuff for anyone worried about automation.
Except in that exact same newsletter, Bloomberg reports that Amazon just announced 14,000 corporate job cuts - literally months after CEO Andy Jassy warned that AI would shrink the company's workforce. Goldman Sachs told staff it's cutting more roles because AI is generating efficiency gains. Meta eliminated 600 jobs from its own AI unit.
That's over 15,000 jobs gone in one month from three major companies - all citing AI directly or indirectly as the reason. But sure, "experts don't see AI cutting roles yet."
The disconnect between expert reassurance and actual corporate bloodbaths is getting absolutely wild. Let's break down what's actually happening versus what the "experts" are saying.
What Bloomberg Actually Reported (While Saying AI Isn't Cutting Jobs)
Here's what the Bloomberg newsletter covered - and keep in mind this is in an article headlined with experts saying AI isn't cutting jobs yet:
Amazon: 14,000 Corporate Jobs Cut
Amazon.com Inc. announced it's eliminating roughly 14,000 corporate positions - about a 4% reduction in its corporate workforce. This comes just months after CEO Andy Jassy explicitly warned in a June memo that he expected Amazon's total corporate workforce to "get smaller over time as a result of efficiency gains from AI."
Not "might get smaller." Not "could potentially see some adjustments." He said the workforce would get smaller specifically because of AI.
And now 14,000 people are gone. Weird how that works.
Amazon's official line on the cuts? They need to "reduce bureaucracy and become more efficient in the new era of artificial intelligence." The company also said the "transformative advancements of artificial intelligence had increased its confidence in operating with a leaner workforce."
Translation: AI lets us do the same work with fewer humans, so we're cutting the humans.
But sure, AI isn't cutting jobs yet.
Goldman Sachs: More Cuts Coming, AI Saving Costs
Goldman Sachs told staff in October 2025 that it plans to cut more jobs this year, explicitly citing AI efficiency gains as enabling the reductions. In an internal memo signed by CEO David Solomon, President John Waldron, and CFO Denis Coleman, executives touted "the efficiency gains produced by AI as a path to more growth."
Goldman said it would "constrain headcount growth through the end of the year" and is planning a "limited reduction in roles across the firm." They're not even hiding it - the memo literally connects AI efficiency to fewer human workers.
This is Goldman Sachs - one of the most prestigious investment banks in the world - openly telling employees that AI is good enough to replace some of you. And then cutting jobs.
But yeah, AI isn't cutting roles yet according to experts.
Meta: 600 Jobs Eliminated from Its Own AI Unit
Here's where it gets darkly hilarious. Facebook-parent Meta announced it was cutting 600 roles in its AI unit over concerns the division had become "bloated."
Read that again: The company building AI tools cut 600 jobs from its AI division. The people literally working on artificial intelligence were deemed unnecessary. The irony is so thick you could cut it with a knife - if you still had a job to wield that knife.
The cuts came from Meta's Superintelligence Labs AI unit. The company that's betting billions on AI as its future decided it needed 600 fewer humans working on that future.
But sure, experts don't see AI cutting roles yet.
The "Experts Don't See AI Cutting Jobs" Take Is Already Obsolete
Let's be clear about what's happening here. Bloomberg published expert opinions saying AI isn't cutting jobs yet while simultaneously reporting on 15,000+ job cuts explicitly linked to AI in the same article.
This isn't a future prediction. This isn't "will AI take jobs someday?" This is companies actively cutting thousands of positions right now and explicitly citing AI as the reason or enabler.
The expert reassurance feels like it's operating on about a 6-12 month delay from reality. By the time "experts" conclude that yes, AI is cutting jobs, companies will have already eliminated hundreds of thousands of positions.
And here's what makes this even more concerning: These are just the companies being honest about why they're cutting jobs. Amazon's Jassy literally warned employees AI would shrink the workforce, then proceeded to shrink the workforce. Goldman explicitly cited AI efficiency in their memo. Meta cut from its own AI division.
How many other companies are cutting jobs because of AI but blaming it on "market conditions" or "restructuring" or "strategic realignment"? How many are just not backfilling positions when people leave, citing "productivity gains" from AI tools?
The Real Numbers Behind "AI Isn't Cutting Jobs Yet"
Bloomberg's article mentions that a Goldman Sachs survey found only 11% of their clients across industries such as tech, industrials, and finance were actively cutting employees as a result of AI. But here's the kicker they also reported: 31% of tech, media, and communications companies were cutting jobs because of AI.
So one in three tech/media companies is openly cutting jobs for AI. That's not a fringe phenomenon. That's a trend.
And as we've covered extensively in our earlier analysis of the Goldman survey, just because only 11% are cutting jobs right now doesn't mean the rest aren't planning to. Goldman's bankers are forecasting 4% head count reductions within a year and 11% within three years for their clients.
The "AI isn't cutting jobs yet" narrative is technically true in the sense that 89% of companies haven't started yet. But that 89% includes all the companies currently in the testing phase, the pilot phase, the "let's see if this AI actually works before we eliminate the humans" phase.
Once those pilots succeed (and they are succeeding), the cuts follow.
Amazon's 14,000 Job Cuts: The Details Matter
Let's dig deeper into the Amazon situation because it perfectly illustrates the gap between expert narratives and corporate reality.
What Andy Jassy Actually Said (June 2025):
In a memo to employees, Amazon CEO Andy Jassy wrote that he expected Amazon's total corporate workforce to "get smaller over time as a result of efficiency gains from AI." He also said parts of the company remain "unwieldy" despite 2023 layoffs and other streamlining efforts.
That's not vague corporate speak. That's the CEO explicitly connecting AI efficiency to fewer employees. He gave workers a clear warning about what was coming.
What Happened Next (October 2025):
Four months later, Amazon announced 14,000 corporate job cuts - roughly 4% of its corporate workforce. The company confirmed it was cutting jobs to "reduce bureaucracy and become more efficient in the new era of artificial intelligence."
Amazon also said the "transformative advancements of artificial intelligence had increased its confidence in operating with a leaner workforce." This is corporate speak for "the AI works well enough now that we don't need as many humans."
And They're Not Done:
Amazon's senior vice president of people experience, Beth Galetti, said in a statement: "We expect to continue hiring in key strategic areas while also finding additional places we can remove layers, increase ownership, and realize efficiency gains."
Translation: More cuts are coming. Reuters reported the job cuts could ultimately reach 30,000.
So Amazon's CEO warned AI would shrink the workforce. Then cut 14,000 jobs citing AI. Then said more cuts are coming. But experts don't see AI cutting roles yet.
The "Culture" Cover Story Is Bullshit
One detail from CNN's coverage of the Amazon layoffs deserves attention: Amazon initially tried to frame the cuts as being about "culture" rather than money or AI.
Andy Jassy has been on a mission to reduce what he calls "bureaucracy" and return Amazon to its "Day 1" startup mentality. The official messaging emphasized cutting management layers and empowering individual contributors.
That sounds noble. "This isn't about money or automation - this is about improving our culture and agility!"
Except Jassy himself already told employees in June that AI efficiency would shrink the workforce. And the October announcement explicitly mentioned "transformative advancements of artificial intelligence" enabling a "leaner workforce."
The culture framing is PR cover. The reality is that AI makes it possible to operate with fewer people, so Amazon is operating with fewer people. They're just packaging it as a return to entrepreneurial roots rather than mass automation.
Don't fall for it. Culture change doesn't require eliminating 14,000 jobs. AI efficiency enabling a "leaner workforce" does.
What "Experts Don't See AI Cutting Jobs" Actually Means
So who are these experts saying AI isn't cutting jobs yet, and why are they so confident while companies are literally cutting tens of thousands of jobs?
A few possibilities:
1. They're Looking at Aggregate Employment Numbers
Some economists look at total employment numbers and see that jobs are still being created overall. They conclude that AI isn't causing net job loss... yet.
But this misses the human cost. Sure, maybe the economy is creating new jobs in healthcare, hospitality, and other sectors. But the person who just got cut from their corporate role at Amazon with the skills and experience in that field doesn't automatically transition to being a nurse or restaurant manager.
Individual workers are experiencing displacement even if aggregate numbers look okay. The macro stats hide the micro pain.
2. They're Trusting Corporate Messaging Over Corporate Actions
Many companies are gun-shy about explicitly linking layoffs to AI because it creates bad PR and potential regulatory scrutiny. So they blame "market conditions" or "strategic realignment" or "cultural transformation."
Experts who take that messaging at face value will conclude AI isn't driving cuts. But when you dig into the actual context - like Andy Jassy warning about AI shrinking the workforce months before cutting 14,000 jobs - the connection becomes obvious.
3. They Have a Lag in Data
Academic research and expert analysis often operates on a 6-12 month (or longer) lag. By the time research gets published saying "we don't see evidence of AI cutting jobs yet," thousands more positions have been eliminated.
The corporate world moves fast. Expert analysis moves slower. The gap between what's happening and what experts say is happening can be massive during periods of rapid change.
4. They're Defining "AI-Driven Job Cuts" Too Narrowly
Some experts only count a job cut as "AI-driven" if the company explicitly says "we're replacing this person with an AI system." By that narrow definition, most cuts don't qualify.
But in reality, AI enables cuts in more subtle ways. A company deploys AI tools that boost productivity by 30%. They now need fewer people to handle the same workload. When they cut 10% of staff in a "restructuring," was that AI-driven? Technically yes, even if they don't say it explicitly.
Why This Expert Narrative Is Dangerous
The "AI isn't cutting jobs yet" expert narrative isn't just wrong - it's actively harmful because it creates false reassurance.
Workers who hear experts say AI isn't eliminating jobs yet might decide they have time to figure things out later. They might not urgently reskill or look for less automation-vulnerable positions. They might not save extra money or build backup income streams.
Then their company announces layoffs - citing AI efficiency, productivity gains, or just vague "restructuring" - and they're caught flat-footed.
Meanwhile, the actual evidence is screaming the opposite message:
- Amazon's CEO explicitly warned AI would shrink the workforce, then cut 14,000 jobs
- Goldman Sachs is cutting jobs and explicitly citing AI efficiency gains
- Meta eliminated 600 positions from its own AI unit
- 31% of tech/media companies are already cutting jobs because of AI according to Goldman's survey
- Goldman's bankers forecast 4% head count cuts within a year, 11% within three years
- Customer support roles - supposedly safe because they require human empathy - are expected to see massive cuts according to 80% of banking advisors
The evidence that AI is actively cutting jobs right now is overwhelming. But the expert narrative hasn't caught up yet.
By the time the experts conclusively say "yes, AI is eliminating jobs," millions of positions will already be gone.
What You Actually Need to Know
Forget what "experts" are saying about whether AI is cutting jobs yet. Look at what major companies are actually doing:
Amazon: CEO warns AI will shrink workforce in June. Cuts 14,000 jobs in October citing AI enabling leaner operations. Says more cuts coming. Reuters reports total cuts could hit 30,000.
Goldman Sachs: Tells employees it's cutting more jobs, explicitly citing AI efficiency gains. CEO, president, and CFO all sign memo connecting AI to fewer human workers needed.
Meta: Cuts 600 jobs from its own AI division. The company building AI tools decides it needs fewer humans working on AI.
That's the reality. Not expert predictions about the future. Not surveys showing only 11% of companies are cutting right now. Not reassuring headlines.
Over 15,000 jobs gone in one month from three companies, all connected to AI. And those are just the ones being honest about it.
What to do about it:
- If you work in corporate roles at tech companies: Amazon just showed you the playbook. CEO warns about AI efficiency. Few months later, 4% of corporate staff is gone. More cuts coming. Take the warning seriously.
- If you work in financial services: Goldman is cutting and citing AI explicitly. Back-office operations, compliance, basic analysis - these are on the chopping block. Start planning your transition.
- If you work in customer support: We've been saying this for months. 80% of Goldman's bankers expect significant cuts. The Meta and Amazon news reinforces it. You have 12-24 months max.
- If your CEO mentions "AI efficiency gains": That's code for "we'll need fewer of you soon." Start looking now, before the announcement comes.
- If your company is doing AI pilots: They're not testing whether AI can do the work. They're testing whether AI can do it well enough to eliminate the humans. Once the pilot succeeds, cuts follow.
The Bottom Line
Bloomberg published a newsletter headlined "Will AI Take My Job? Experts Don't See Artificial Intelligence Cutting Roles Yet" while reporting that Amazon, Goldman Sachs, and Meta just eliminated over 15,000 jobs with direct or indirect connections to AI.
The disconnect is staggering.
Here's what's actually happening: Companies are deploying AI tools that enable productivity gains. Those productivity gains mean they need fewer humans to generate the same output. So they're cutting humans - sometimes explicitly citing AI, sometimes hiding it behind "restructuring" or "culture change" narratives.
Amazon's CEO literally warned employees in June that AI would shrink the workforce. Four months later, 14,000 corporate jobs were eliminated with the company explicitly citing AI advancements. And they said more cuts are coming.
Goldman Sachs told staff they're cutting more jobs because AI is generating efficiency gains. They're not even pretending otherwise - the memo from the C-suite directly connects AI to fewer workers.
Meta cut 600 jobs from its own AI unit. The people building the automation got automated.
These aren't edge cases. These aren't isolated incidents. This is the playbook:
- Deploy AI tools that boost productivity
- Test whether AI can handle tasks previously done by humans
- Once AI performance is "good enough," reduce human head count
- Package it as "efficiency" or "culture change" rather than automation
- Watch stock price increase as labor costs decline
The fact that experts are still saying "we don't see AI cutting roles yet" while this is happening at massive scale is either wilful blindness or a catastrophic lag in recognizing reality.
Don't wait for expert consensus before taking action. By the time the experts agree AI is eliminating jobs, your position might already be gone.
Amazon, Goldman, and Meta just showed you exactly what's coming. The only question is: Are you going to act on that information, or wait for experts to validate what's already happening?