Hey everyone, welcome to another consumer tech advice article. But today, it’s less about buying tech and more about understanding it.
This isn’t a conspiracy theory or a doom-and-gloom job market prediction—just an awareness piece. It was inspired by Anthropic, one of the world’s leading AI companies, after its CEO shared some eye-opening insights.
In a CNN interview, he said, “AI is starting to get better than humans at almost all intellectual tasks, and we’re going to collectively, as a society, grapple with it.” He even admitted AI will outperform CEOs—including himself. Coming from the head of such a major AI company, that’s huge.
Later, in an Axios interview, he estimated AI could eliminate half of entry-level white-collar jobs possibly in just five years. But let’s take that with a grain of salt. It’s just a prediction, and we don’t know which regions he meant—America? Canada? Asia? Europe? The fact that he addressed it so openly is rare among AI leaders.
I’ve experienced this shift firsthand. My LinkedIn resume got noticed, and a recruiting firm reached out. I agreed to a pre-screening interview, thinking I’d be speaking to a person—but nope, AI conducted the call.
It wasn’t a robotic, monotone voice but fluid, near-human. The pitch wavered at times, and a few words stuttered, so I could tell it was AI. Still, it kept up with me in conversation. I was impressed—yet also unsettled. The irony of AI recruiting humans instead of humans recruiting humans? Wild.
On the flip side, I applied for another job as a long shot. They reached out, saying I qualified for pre-screening—with AI handling the process. Unlike my first experience, this one was a mess. The AI service couldn’t hear me, and I couldn’t hear it. I could see its text on-screen, but there was no audio. I tested it across multiple computers, operating systems, browsers, microphones—even my phones with different headsets. Nothing worked.
Worst of all, there was no button for feedback or tech support. I couldn’t even contact the recruiter to request a human interview. Their take was probably just rely on AI, even though the system was completely broken.
Beyond CEOs, other major figures are weighing in—including Bill Gates. His view aligns with Anthropic’s CEO: AI will replace most jobs—both blue- and white-collar—within 20 years. He wasn’t specific about entry-level roles, just that AI would wipe out most positions.
The most surprising part? Gates predicted only three professions would survive the AI revolution—biologists, energy experts, and coders. I don’t agree at all, especially about coders. They’re far from safe. AI can absolutely replace them. Not saying programmers should panic, but they shouldn’t assume job security either.
This is especially ironic considering Microsoft’s current CEO, Satya Nadella—two successors after Gates—just laid off 6,000 employees. In an interview, he admitted AI replaced them. It wasn’t about worker performance—they were good employees. AI simply did their jobs better.
So, Gates says AI will take over in 20 years, yet Microsoft is already cutting jobs due to AI today. And the most telling detail? Nadella discussed AI with Mark Zuckerberg, revealing that 20–30% of their code repository is AI-generated. Given that Microsoft confirmed layoffs were AI-driven, it’s safe to assume many displaced workers were developers. Could some roles in marketing or admin be affected? Sure. But with that much AI-generated code, developer jobs are clearly on the chopping block.
Mark Zuckerberg isn’t exempt from this AI shift. He predicts that within a year, AI could handle half of software development—only increasing from there. A company built on software is openly admitting that AI will automate much of its workforce.
Some might ask why CEOs like Zuckerberg and Satya Nadella openly make these tone-deaf statements. Simple: they’re marketing AI—pushing Copilot, Meta AI, and automation to show companies how much they can save.
As we move through this article, CEO comments on AI get worse, raising the question—are they even human? Or just optimizing profits at any cost?
To be clear, I use AI. I think it’s incredible, especially for scientific and medical advancements. In my case, I research, script, film, edit, and write website versions of my videos. AI helps me transcribe, refine, and reduce wording from my videos to my website written version. It’s not perfect—I still proofread and correct a lot—but what took three hours now takes one. Huge time savings.
But here’s my concern: I do this as a hobby, not a full-time job. Automation is necessary—it frees us for more valuable tasks. Yet, replacing people at breakneck speed is alarming. Why aren’t human CEOs advocating for each other to stay employed? Especially when CEOs worth millions and billions push automation further. How much more money do they need? Apparently, it’s never enough.
Then there’s Google, handling AI differently—yet still cutting jobs. Their CEO admitted 25% of Google’s code is AI-generated, and mass layoffs are underway. DeepMind’s CEO claims valuable new jobs will emerge, supercharging tech-savvy workers. He believes kids growing up with AI will be as native to it as past generations were to the internet.
He advises students to focus on STEM—science, tech, engineering, math—since AI will shape the future. He’s not wrong; AI studies will explode in colleges and universities. But here’s the irony—more AI-trained experts will create better AI, leading to more job automation, driving higher unemployment. A self-perpetuating cycle.
He ignores another major issue: AI could replace millions of jobs in the U.S. alone in the coming years—recruiters, accountants, paralegals, and admin roles among them. These losses aren’t discussed nearly enough.
Take Duolingo’s CEO, who faced major backlash after announcing AI would replace all contractors. His message shifted fast—suddenly AI was just a tool to help workers, not replace them. Clearly, he realized upsetting customers could hurt his business.
Other CEOs are just as direct. Shopify’s leader told employees that every new hire must be justified—why can’t AI do the job instead? It’s baffling how billionaire executives never seem satisfied, pushing automation just to cut salaries.
This pattern is especially common in publicly traded companies (not all, but most common), where CEOs answer to investors. Ironically, CEOs never offer to take fewer shares. More profits, more control—it’s never enough.
Then there’s Zoom. In a recent earnings call, the CEO wasn’t even present—his AI avatar ran the meeting. The CEO of Klarna did the same thing, presenting via a hyper-realistic AI-generated video. The backlash was swift, especially for Klarna’s CEO—his YouTube comments were flooded with demands for his removal. If a CEO isn’t attending their own earnings calls, why keep them?
But here’s the reality: CEOs don’t care. This isn’t about public opinion—it’s a strategic move to market AI to other executives. For example, A CEO of a $100 million company might see Zoom’s CEO AI avatar and think, “Why not automate my meetings too?” Less work, more efficiency, fewer employees.
Companies see AI automation as a game-changer—cut costs, reduce staff, boost efficiency, all while executive salaries stay the same or even increase.
But will governments step in? That’s the big question. So far, no one else is acting. The European Union might lead the charge on regulation, and Canada, despite being financially strong, faces rising unemployment due to a population and housing crisis. AI is just another layer on top of existing issues.
The real challenge is figuring out how to regulate AI-driven job losses. Should companies be required to maintain a certain employee count based on revenue? That’s easier said than done, and even governments would struggle to enforce it.
So, what’s the solution? This article has highlighted the negatives, but there are ways to adapt. One example: a friend’s wife, who works in video game visual effects, saw AI-driven layoffs sweeping her industry. Instead of waiting for the worst, she’s actively studying new skills to stay ahead.
AI isn’t perfect—at least not yet. Take my recruiting experience, where one AI service failed entirely. It’s clear that full automation still has gaps.
For those wondering what to do now—specialization is key. If you’re in a vulnerable industry like recruiting or accounting, consider pivoting. Recruiters could focus on IT recruitment, where expertise matters. They could get IT certifications like ITIL Foundation can make you more specialized, harder to replace. In accounting, professionals constantly get certifications to stay competitive, even before AI became a threat.
Adaptation isn’t easy, but it’s necessary.
Some industries face major disruption—actors, models, and creatives are at high risk. With AI image generation, companies won’t need models, photographers, editors, or rented locations for marketing. In fact, just today (when the video and article was written), Meta announced its LLM will let marketers create ads entirely through AI—no need for human talent. For those in this high-risk fields, the best approach is to talk with colleagues and see how they’re adapting. Staying ahead of AI’s impact is crucial.
This article isn’t about fear—it’s about awareness. If you’re in high school or college and entering an AI-vulnerable industry like HR recruiting, consider rethinking your career path. You’re still young enough to pivot before jobs vanish 20–30 years from now.
I hope this article helped spark some thought. Don’t be caught off guard—AI’s impact is happening now. Prepare for it.
