BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Unattributed Quote, and Appeal to Authority, with Pessimism Bias as the most egregious example at 31.3% saturation with 166 hits. Analysis detected 1,349 faulty-reasoning hits from 530 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 56.7% and a BS Rank of 61% (8,588 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 60.80% of the article peer group.
AI-related job loss fears grow each time another company announces a round of layoffs.
Through May of 2026, companies announced that close to 90,000 job cuts were tied to AI, and, by some accounts, up to 15% of U.S. jobs are projected to be eliminated by AI over the next five years.
Promises from the tech industry that AI will also create new jobs does little to ease fears, especially for the generation wondering if anyone will be hiring when they graduate.
A recent report from Ramp and Revelio Labs, which track enterprise AI spend and workforce records from nearly 22,000 companies, respectively, complicates that gloomy narrative.
The report found that companies spending heavily on AI are growing headcount faster, even in the entry-level roles that many fear are doomed.
According to the report, “high-intensity adopters” — firms that spend on average $30 per employee per month on AI in the first three months — saw headcount increase 10.2%.
Headcount also rose across functions, including engineering, sales, administration, customer service, finance, marketing, and scientist roles.
The strongest job growth among high-intensity adopters was in the information sector, which includes software, internet, media, and tech-adjacent firms.
Despite these positive signals, the data isn’t as rosy as it seems.
It skews heavily towards tech-forward, knowledge-work firms — ones that might have VC-backing and are growing fast anyway, making it difficult to say whether AI is contributing to the hiring or just showing up at companies that are expanding anyway.
“This paper does not show that AI universally creates jobs,” the paper’s authors admit, “but it does counter claims that AI will lead to broad job losses.”
It also counters claims that AI is killing all junior jobs.
Recent research from Goldman Sachs found that AI has already erased about 16,000 net jobs per month over the past year, with Gen Z and entry level workers taking the brunt of the burden.
But in tech-forward firms, the report finds that entry-level headcount actually rose by 12%.
So what can we take away from this?
Perhaps that AI isn’t always a tool for labor substitution, but that it can be a tool for firm-expansion instead.
“For software and technology firms, AI can make core output cheaper or faster to produce: writing code, debugging, building internal tools, producing technical documentation, and supporting product development,” the report reads.
“Lower production costs in these workflows can raise the return to expanding the whole firm, not just the engineering team.”
But companies that buy subscriptions and run pilots, yet did not go on to make sustained investments, don’t tend to see any gains in headcount, per the report.
That sets up the potential for a widening gap between firms that have the resources — like capital, technical staff, founder networks, and management bandwidth — to turn AI adoption into actual business gains and those that are stuck experimenting with subscriptions.
In other words, this report suggests that firms that already have the resources are the ones who will see the largest gains.
The paper’s authors speculate such a divide may continue to grow, saying: “Firms without those channels may fall behind.”
Speakers
2speakers25%attributed speech399writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Selected voice
100%flagged-word coverageGoldman Sachs
34 attributed words26% of attributed speech93% writer coverage
Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.