So everyone always talks about the scenario where for example a CEO fires 3 out of 5 devs because the remaining 2 can just use AI to do the same amount of work. When that happens, people get pissed because it’s obvious corporate greed. You’re firing people just to make more profit by not having to pay those extra devs, not because you can't afford them.

But I’ve been thinking about a different angle that’s way more messed up and likely where we are heading soon.

Just recently, I've read about companies that had monthly AI bills get into millions of dollars. Some smaller companies could really be facing bankruptcy if they don't cut costs. Firing 3 devs just to keep the lights on then stops looking like "greed" and looks like survival, basically avoiding going out of business.

You could make a moral argument "just stop paying for the AI and keep the human workers," but not many will want to work at a tech company today that doesn’t provide top tier AI tooling, so you kind of have to pay for AI...

So here’s the precedent this sets: Layoffs won't be framed as "AI is stealing your job" anymore instead they’re going to be framed as "we literally cannot afford both the tech and the people, so the people have to go."

It gives executives the perfect shield against bad PR. They can just point at a massive OpenAI or Anthropic invoice and say "look, it was either lay people off or we go bankrupt and then lay off everyone." It turns humans into the only thing that can actually be cut. (instead of cutting AI usage)

We're trapped in this weird loop where you need the AI to stay competitive, the AI costs a fortune, so you have to fire the humans who needed the AI in the first place or likely won't even take the job.