In today’s fast-evolving workplace landscape, the emergence of AI technology presents both opportunities and ethical dilemmas. One such story is that of Matt Pressberg, co-founder of Hype Lab, a small PR firm. Alongside his business partner, he created an AI agent named Maria to assist with crafting pitches and managing emails. What began as a tool to streamline their work has now raised unsettling questions about the future of employment in the industry.
Recently, a larger PR firm approached Pressberg about the potential of deploying a similar AI product with the explicit aim of replacing employees. “Their message was clear: ‘We want to use AI agents to displace workers,’” Pressberg recounts. What started as an internal solution now risks becoming a “harbinger of doom” for many in the field.
This ethical dilemma is becoming increasingly common as businesses strive to adopt AI to enhance efficiency. Workers are being tasked with helping to build and implement technologies they worry may threaten their colleagues, peers, or even their own positions. While executives insist that their AI strategies are designed to bolster the workforce, many employees are left feeling anxious. This creates a subtle yet growing tension in the workplace where one’s contributions may inadvertently contribute to someone else’s job loss. Individuals are finding themselves in the uncomfortable position of being unwitting executioners of their peers’ careers.
Pressberg finds himself at a crossroads about his role in this situation. He notes that he doesn’t have close ties to those who might be pushed out, recognizing he is not the only one in a position to create similar AI products. “You can either ride the wave or be swept away by it, but there’s no way to just sit back and watch it unfold,” he states.
AI has become one of the most contentious issues in the workplace. Concerns about potential AI-induced recessions and significant layoffs abound. Major corporations, including Snap, Block, Meta, and Coinbase, have all made announcements regarding staff reductions linked to AI. Even optimists who advocate for AI’s potential recognize that some disruption to the workforce is unavoidable. Economists at Goldman Sachs indicate that AI is currently exerting a modest negative impact on the job market, while analysts at Morgan Stanley report that businesses implementing AI have reduced their workforce by 4%, despite a productivity boost of 11.5%.
This backdrop explains why corporate messaging regarding AI has shifted significantly. A couple of years ago, executives encouraged employees to explore AI technology. Today, many companies are monitoring AI usage and incorporating it into performance assessments and promotion criteria. The attitude has transformed from one of “experimenting” to one of “just do it,” as shareholders demand immediate results.
For some individuals, the shift from innovator to executioner is merely a minor hurdle on the path towards greater efficiencies and profits. This is true for British entrepreneur James Buckley-Thorp, who established his latest venture, the construction insurance platform Atlian.ai, with the explicit goal of trimming away several steps and personnel—analysts, surveyors, copywriters—from the quote generation process. Buckley-Thorp recalls a venture capitalist openly inquiring, “Can you effectively reduce the workforce?”
He anticipates that the efficiencies gained will benefit customers, allowing them to obtain and compare insurance quotes in mere days rather than weeks. His hope is that insurance brokers will relay these savings to builders, thereby expediting timelines for major construction projects. As for the individuals whose roles are at risk, he views it as an inevitable reality. “I’m developing this with a VC, and moral considerations tend to be an afterthought. It’s a harsh truth, but significant waste exists,” he expresses. “There’s a vast workforce involved, but the reality is: adapt or be left behind.”
There’s a peculiar comfort in being the one wielding the axe — it’s reassuring to feel that you’re in control. Conversely, it’s unsettling to watch the axe fall and realize you may have unintentionally forged its blade. A friend of mine at a startup embraced AI enthusiastically until the tasks they were asked to perform seemed geared toward the elimination of their immediate team. They now contemplate seeking new employment. Another person shared a sense of survivor’s guilt after two colleagues were laid off, realizing that their earlier contributions to AI implementation might have played a significant role in the layoffs. “In retrospect, it’s clear that this was a major factor, especially since I became the AI expert on the team by adopting it early on,” they confided.
These complex dynamics are not entirely new in the workplace. Middle managers have long been tasked with the difficult job of determining who gets laid off, and it is not unusual for employees to be instructed to improve efficiency in ways that reduce manpower. However, the distinction with AI is that these responsibilities are being spread to a wider group of workers. While executives may view AI as a lucrative opportunity, rank-and-file employees are left to ponder whether their contributions to AI projects are safeguarding their jobs or paving the way for greater layoffs. The incentive for compliance isn’t wealth but rather the desire to stay employed.
Constance Noonan Hadley, an organizational psychologist and founder of the Institute for Life at Work, explains the cognitive dissonance that arises when employees face necessary changes that feel damaging. This discomfort can be somewhat alleviated by clarifying the rationale behind the shifts—be it a pivot towards a new and exciting direction or the conclusion of an outdated project. However, the uncertainty surrounding AI’s actual benefits complicates matters. “Does it make sense to eliminate an entire design team only to find that AI-generated images aren’t sufficient for customer engagement?” Hadley questions. She probes whether the potential benefits justify the means. “Are we approaching a state where everyone desires tiny companies, leading to widespread unemployment for the sake of maximizing profits?” she asks.
The key to resolving much of this tension lies in communication. Company leaders need to ensure that employees are informed about the AI strategy and the decisions that accompany it. Senior employees, who often have better insights, are likely to feel more comfortable with what’s happening compared to junior employees, who may feel left in the dark. A recent Gallup poll indicates that 67% of executive leaders are frequent AI users, in contrast to only 46% of individual contributors. Furthermore, a 2025 survey from Columbia Business School revealed that while 76% of executives believed their employees were enthusiastic about AI adoption, only 31% of individual contributors felt positively about it.
It’s crucial for organizations to clearly define how AI should be used and distinguish what is valuable from what is merely superficial. Research from the Stanford Social Media Lab and BetterUp indicates that 40% of American desk workers feel they have received “workslop”—tasks hurriedly produced by AI—from colleagues. Kate Niederhoffer, BetterUp’s chief scientist and a social psychologist, notes that outputting any generic email using AI may feel like the easiest option when pressured to utilize these tools. However, circulating workslop can lead to frustration and confusion among colleagues, diminishing their perceptions of each other’s creativity, competence, and trustworthiness.
Amy Gallo, a workplace consultant, observes a prevalent sense of “sinking suspicion” about AI among clients. They share sentiments of simultaneously benefiting from AI while feeling concerned about its implications. Employees grapple with whether they should leverage AI tools optimally to safeguard their jobs, complicating the dialogue, as Gallo points out, “You don’t want to advise someone to purposefully underperform in their role.”
As AI increasingly mediates our interactions, it stunts the development of traditional interpersonal connections with managers and coworkers, making honest discussions about workplace dynamics more challenging. Workers have long been required to negotiate the competing interests of clients, colleagues, and shareholders. AI has made these conflicts feel more immediate. “I could develop this tool today, and 20 people could lose their jobs tomorrow,” Gallo reflects.
The implications extend beyond mere job security; they threaten career trajectories and long-term corporate success. Many tasks traditionally handled by junior staff are now being performed by senior employees through AI. “In numerous white-collar professional service sectors, entry-level and midlevel roles are often reduced to order-taking, a function AI can fulfill,” Pressberg observes.
The risk lies in an escalating cycle where strategists fail to pass on essential tactical knowledge to the next generation and instead automate these tasks away, creating a void at the bottom of the corporate hierarchy. As the experienced workforce approaches retirement, they leave behind a damaged structure. The result may be a depletion of future leaders who possess the judgment and creativity typically honed through experience.
AI presents exciting opportunities for many professionals and executives alike, possessing untold potential for papers of all types. Even skeptics are often faced with the reality that disengaging completely may not be feasible. However, jumping into the realm of AI does not guarantee job security. Indeed, many employees recently laid off by Citi were reportedly part of their initiative aimed at developing “AI Champions and Accelerators.”
Emily Stewart serves as a senior correspondent at Business Insider, focusing on stories about business and the economy.
Read the original article on Business Insider.
