Why Every Company Is Betting on AI, Even as They Lay Off Workers
Companies are pouring money into AI, like Amazon’s Anthropic deal, while cutting jobs to fund it. They’re restructuring around automation to boost efficiency, stay competitive, and future-proof operations, shifting routine work to AI and reskilling some workers for new roles.
By late 2025, “AI” has become both the boardroom buzzword and the budget line item no company dares to ignore. From tech titans like Amazon and Microsoft to shipping giants, banks, and retailers, the message is clear: artificial intelligence isn’t just a side project anymore—it’s the future of how business gets done.
But that future comes with an uncomfortable reality. Even as companies spend billions building AI tools, data centers, and model partnerships, they’re cutting thousands of jobs. And the pattern is no coincidence. Executives are quietly rewriting their playbooks around one idea: invest in AI, fund it by cutting everything else.
The Great Reallocation
Take Amazon. The e-commerce and cloud leader announced an additional $4 billion investment in Anthropic, the San Francisco startup behind the Claude family of large language models. The deal made Amazon Web Services (AWS) Anthropic’s primary cloud and model-training partner and deepened Amazon’s stake in the generative-AI boom.
At the same time, Amazon trimmed hundreds of jobs across Prime Video, MGM Studios, and Twitch. Company statements described the cuts as part of a “realignment toward priority growth areas.” Those “priority areas,” of course, revolve around AI - embedding generative assistants into AWS, advertising, and logistics.
This dual narrative - funding innovation through austerity - has become the corporate template for 2025. Microsoft, Google, SAP, and even logistics firms like UPS are following versions of it, pouring capital into AI initiatives while shrinking payrolls in legacy divisions.
For shareholders, the math makes sense: AI infrastructure is expensive. Between high-end GPUs, new data-center construction, and licensing costs for foundation models, companies must free up billions. For employees, it feels like progress with a pink slip attached.
Restructuring for the Algorithm Age
In Europe, software giant SAP offered one of the clearest examples of how “AI transformation” actually looks inside a company. Early this year, it launched a €2.2 billion restructuring program that will affect about 8,000 roles. The plan mixes reskilling and voluntary exits, aiming to shift headcount toward what SAP calls “Business AI”—machine-learning tools built directly into its enterprise platforms.
SAP’s move echoes a growing theme across industries: not just adopting AI, but re-architecting organizations around it. Google has done the same, folding its Gemini AI model into almost every product line even as it trims contractors and non-core teams. Microsoft has reallocated resources from legacy divisions toward Copilot and Azure AI.
These are not layoffs in the traditional, recessionary sense—they’re workforce realignments. In each case, companies are moving human and financial capital away from slower-growth operations and toward AI projects that promise long-term margins and market share.
Beyond Silicon Valley: AI Becomes Industrial
What’s striking is how far beyond tech this shift has spread.
UPS, the 117-year-old logistics company, announced it would cut 12,000 jobs in 2024, citing automation and “structural efficiencies.” Machine-learning tools now handle everything from route planning to pricing optimization, shaving minutes and fuel costs from every delivery. AI may not be loading trucks yet, but it’s increasingly deciding where and when those trucks move.
In the financial sector, Klarna offered one of the starkest demonstrations of AI’s impact. The Swedish payments company said its AI assistant—built on OpenAI technology—now handles two-thirds of all customer-service chats, performing the work of roughly 700 full-time agents. Resolution times dropped from 11 minutes to 2 minutes, and customer satisfaction rose. For Klarna’s investors, it’s a productivity miracle; for hundreds of human support workers, it’s an existential warning.
Even education tech isn’t immune. Duolingo reduced portions of its contract workforce this year, explaining that generative AI could now help create and review course content. Executives insisted that full-time roles remain safe, but the message was unmistakable: tasks that can be automated, will be.
Why Companies Are Willing to Pay the Price
Executives justify these moves with a familiar argument: AI is an investment in efficiency and competitiveness.
In Amazon’s case, the Anthropic partnership doesn’t just advance research—it strengthens AWS’s moat. Enterprises adopting Claude through Amazon’s Bedrock platform deepen their commitment to AWS cloud infrastructure, creating sticky, recurring revenue.
Microsoft’s AI push is similar. The company’s Azure division has become the backbone of OpenAI’s services, while its own Copilot tools are being baked into Office, Windows, and GitHub. Every AI upgrade drives usage, which drives subscriptions, which feeds growth.
For SAP, the goal is more internal: embedding machine learning into ERP software makes its offerings smarter and harder for customers to replace.
And for non-tech players like UPS or Klarna, AI simply changes the unit economics of doing business. Once a virtual assistant can do the work of hundreds of employees for a fraction of the cost, leadership can’t ignore the math.
Still, the calculus isn’t purely financial. Companies also see AI as a defensive move—a way to future-proof themselves against disruption. If your competitors are automating support or using predictive analytics to lower costs, standing still means falling behind. It’s less about greed than survival.
Layoffs by Another Name
Few executives will admit to cutting people because of AI. Official statements usually cite “efficiency,” “restructuring,” or “focus on core priorities.” But talk privately to managers in HR or operations, and a different picture emerges.
Roles tied to routine, repeatable tasks—from data entry and testing to customer service—are shrinking. Others are being merged, reskilled, or augmented by AI systems. The new buzzword inside many companies isn’t “reduction” but “realignment.”
SAP’s approach illustrates that nuance. Thousands of employees will leave, but thousands more will shift into newly created AI-adjacent roles—training models, verifying outputs, and managing digital workflows. The company has pledged to spend heavily on reskilling to keep institutional knowledge in-house.
That middle ground—automate some, upskill others—may define the labor market of the next decade. AI isn’t eliminating work entirely; it’s rearranging it.
Inside the New Corporate Strategy
Listen closely to investor calls, and a pattern emerges. The same story repeats across sectors: companies are cutting from low-margin segments to fund AI bets that promise higher returns later.
Microsoft’s 2025 workforce reductions were accompanied by record capital expenditures on GPUs and data centers. Amazon and Google made similar trade-offs. These are long-term infrastructure plays, much like railroads or electricity in past industrial shifts.
Meanwhile, CFOs are demanding that AI programs prove their worth. Gone are the days of open-ended “innovation labs.” Every new model or chatbot must tie back to productivity metrics—faster service, lower costs, more engaged users. Klarna’s statistics—faster resolution, higher satisfaction—are now the benchmark others chase.
Even conservative industries like banking and insurance are joining in. Executives there describe AI less as magic and more as mandatory modernization, akin to moving from paper to digital a generation ago. The tone has shifted from excitement to inevitability.
Winners, Losers, and What Comes Next
The real question isn’t whether companies will adopt AI; they already have, but how gracefully they’ll do it. The winners will be those who pair automation with reskilling, transparency, and human oversight. The losers will treat AI purely as a cost-cutting weapon.
Already, early adopters are learning that not everything can or should be automated. Klarna’s AI handles routine customer requests flawlessly, but complex or emotionally charged cases still require people. Contact-center operators are rediscovering the value of human empathy in high-stress situations.
Meanwhile, regulators and labor advocates are watching closely. Governments in the U.S. and Europe are exploring guidelines on AI-driven workforce changes and transparency around automation’s impact. The political backlash against “AI layoffs” could become the next policy flashpoint.
The Inevitable Balancing Act
For now, the balance of power favors the machines—or at least the executives funding them. AI offers too much upside to ignore: new products, higher margins, data insights, and a competitive edge. Yet the human cost is equally undeniable. Every new generative model or AI assistant may improve productivity, but it also renders some skills obsolete.
If there’s a silver lining, it’s that AI still depends on people—to design prompts, interpret results, and steer outcomes. The smartest companies are already realizing that success lies not in replacing employees, but in teaching them to work alongside the algorithms.
The coming years will test that balance. For now, corporate America is betting big—and betting that the future of work, however uncomfortable, will be written in code.
Comments
Loading comments...