
关于人工智能即将取代白领的讨论,始终基于这样一个前提:人工智能的专业能力将达到白领水平,进而助力企业压缩人力成本。然而最新研究发现,众多打着人工智能旗号裁员的企业,并未实现这一预期。
研究咨询公司高德纳对350位来自年营收不低于10亿美元的全球企业的高管进行的调查发现,无论是否采用人工智能,许多企业都在裁员。在那些已开展人工智能或自动化技术试点的受访企业中,80%表示实施了裁员,且这一决策与技术是否真正产生回报并无关联。
“若想真正从人工智能中挖掘商业价值,只盯着裁员节流无疑是短视之举,”高德纳副总裁兼分析师、该研究的主要研究员海伦·普瓦特万(Helen Poitevin)对《财富》杂志表示,“单纯依靠缩减人员规模谋求效益,很可能会让大多数企业陷入回报受限的困境。”
人工智能自动化带来的迫在眉睫的威胁,让许多员工对自己的工作忧心忡忡。但越来越多的企业高管和经济学家开始质疑,这项技术是否真的会引发裁员。阿波罗全球管理公司(Apollo)首席经济学家托尔斯滕·斯洛克(Torsten Slok)近期援引了“杰文斯悖论”(Jevons paradox)——这一19世纪的理论解释了为何在蒸汽机效率提升、煤炭使用成本下降的情况下,煤炭需求反而增加。斯洛克认为这一悖论同样适用于人工智能时代,并预测这项技术将创造更多就业岗位,而非削减岗位。
企业如何通过部署人工智能获得收益
普瓦特万指出,报告高投资回报率的企业,与报告人工智能相关裁员的公司并非同一批。事实上,无论是报告高回报率的企业,还是因自动化运营导致收益较低、业绩承压的企业,其裁员率几乎持平。
“裁员并不会创造价值,”她在谈及裁员时表示,“也绝非提升生产力的有效途径。”
相反,研究发现收益最高的企业是那些将人工智能作为“员工赋能”工具的企业,它们部署这项技术是为了提升员工的生产力,而非直接取代员工。
人工智能相关裁员现状
如今,全球企业高管在人工智能应用上的分歧日益加深。在高德纳另一项针对首席执行官及其他企业高管的调查中,约三分之一的受访者表示,他们期望自主人工智能辅助人类做决策,而非独立做出决策;另有27%的高管表示,他们期望人工智能实现完全自主决策,仅需人类少量介入或完全无需人类参与。
Anthropic首席执行官达里奥·阿莫迪(Dario Amodei)最近收回了他去年关于人工智能将淘汰半数白领入门级岗位的争议性言论。他转而表示,人工智能能赋能员工、提升工作效率,并援引了杰文斯悖论,但同时警告称,人工智能的发展速度比以往任何技术都快,因此可能带来不同的结果。
“当给系统施加的负荷超出其常规极限时,就可能引发异常行为,并造成颠覆性冲击。”他说道。
至少在硅谷,将裁员归因于人工智能已成为常态。再就业服务公司Challenger, Gray and Christmas发现,3月和4月,人工智能已成为裁员的首要原因,全年人工智能相关裁员人数已达49135人,几乎与该公司2025年报告的人工智能相关裁员总数持平。
然而,人工智能创新并非此轮裁员的唯一原因。对于那些将大量预算投入人工智能基础设施建设的超大规模企业而言,为支撑巨额人工智能投入而裁员已成为行业趋势。因此,微软和Meta等公司表示,需通过精简人员盘活现金流。此外,还有一种可能:许多打着人工智能旗号的裁员,实际上可能出于其他潜在动机,这种做法被称为“AI洗白”。OpenAI首席执行官萨姆·奥尔特曼(Sam Altman)在2月的一次采访中就提到了这一现象。
“我不清楚确切的比例,但确实存在‘AI洗白’现象——人们将本就计划实施的裁员归咎于人工智能,当然也确实存在人工智能替代不同类型岗位的情况。”他说。
但普瓦特万表示,数据表明,即便这些裁员与人工智能相关,也更像是企业在试水人工智能,而非启动结构性重组。
“在我们看来,大多数企业只是开展了小范围的一次性尝试,”她表示,“这种做法根本无法让企业从人工智能投资中获得足额回报。”(财富中文网)
译者:中慧言-王芳
关于人工智能即将取代白领的讨论,始终基于这样一个前提:人工智能的专业能力将达到白领水平,进而助力企业压缩人力成本。然而最新研究发现,众多打着人工智能旗号裁员的企业,并未实现这一预期。
研究咨询公司高德纳对350位来自年营收不低于10亿美元的全球企业的高管进行的调查发现,无论是否采用人工智能,许多企业都在裁员。在那些已开展人工智能或自动化技术试点的受访企业中,80%表示实施了裁员,且这一决策与技术是否真正产生回报并无关联。
“若想真正从人工智能中挖掘商业价值,只盯着裁员节流无疑是短视之举,”高德纳副总裁兼分析师、该研究的主要研究员海伦·普瓦特万(Helen Poitevin)对《财富》杂志表示,“单纯依靠缩减人员规模谋求效益,很可能会让大多数企业陷入回报受限的困境。”
人工智能自动化带来的迫在眉睫的威胁,让许多员工对自己的工作忧心忡忡。但越来越多的企业高管和经济学家开始质疑,这项技术是否真的会引发裁员。阿波罗全球管理公司(Apollo)首席经济学家托尔斯滕·斯洛克(Torsten Slok)近期援引了“杰文斯悖论”(Jevons paradox)——这一19世纪的理论解释了为何在蒸汽机效率提升、煤炭使用成本下降的情况下,煤炭需求反而增加。斯洛克认为这一悖论同样适用于人工智能时代,并预测这项技术将创造更多就业岗位,而非削减岗位。
企业如何通过部署人工智能获得收益
普瓦特万指出,报告高投资回报率的企业,与报告人工智能相关裁员的公司并非同一批。事实上,无论是报告高回报率的企业,还是因自动化运营导致收益较低、业绩承压的企业,其裁员率几乎持平。
“裁员并不会创造价值,”她在谈及裁员时表示,“也绝非提升生产力的有效途径。”
相反,研究发现收益最高的企业是那些将人工智能作为“员工赋能”工具的企业,它们部署这项技术是为了提升员工的生产力,而非直接取代员工。
人工智能相关裁员现状
如今,全球企业高管在人工智能应用上的分歧日益加深。在高德纳另一项针对首席执行官及其他企业高管的调查中,约三分之一的受访者表示,他们期望自主人工智能辅助人类做决策,而非独立做出决策;另有27%的高管表示,他们期望人工智能实现完全自主决策,仅需人类少量介入或完全无需人类参与。
Anthropic首席执行官达里奥·阿莫迪(Dario Amodei)最近收回了他去年关于人工智能将淘汰半数白领入门级岗位的争议性言论。他转而表示,人工智能能赋能员工、提升工作效率,并援引了杰文斯悖论,但同时警告称,人工智能的发展速度比以往任何技术都快,因此可能带来不同的结果。
“当给系统施加的负荷超出其常规极限时,就可能引发异常行为,并造成颠覆性冲击。”他说道。
至少在硅谷,将裁员归因于人工智能已成为常态。再就业服务公司Challenger, Gray and Christmas发现,3月和4月,人工智能已成为裁员的首要原因,全年人工智能相关裁员人数已达49135人,几乎与该公司2025年报告的人工智能相关裁员总数持平。
然而,人工智能创新并非此轮裁员的唯一原因。对于那些将大量预算投入人工智能基础设施建设的超大规模企业而言,为支撑巨额人工智能投入而裁员已成为行业趋势。因此,微软和Meta等公司表示,需通过精简人员盘活现金流。此外,还有一种可能:许多打着人工智能旗号的裁员,实际上可能出于其他潜在动机,这种做法被称为“AI洗白”。OpenAI首席执行官萨姆·奥尔特曼(Sam Altman)在2月的一次采访中就提到了这一现象。
“我不清楚确切的比例,但确实存在‘AI洗白’现象——人们将本就计划实施的裁员归咎于人工智能,当然也确实存在人工智能替代不同类型岗位的情况。”他说。
但普瓦特万表示,数据表明,即便这些裁员与人工智能相关,也更像是企业在试水人工智能,而非启动结构性重组。
“在我们看来,大多数企业只是开展了小范围的一次性尝试,”她表示,“这种做法根本无法让企业从人工智能投资中获得足额回报。”(财富中文网)
译者:中慧言-王芳
The ongoing dialogue regarding the ever-imminent displacement of white-collar workers by AI is predicated on the assumption that the technology will become as skilled as the very workers it threatens to displace, thereby cutting labor costs. But a new study found that’s not quite what’s playing out in many companies that have carried out AI-related layoffs.
A survey of 350 global business executives with an annual revenue of at least $1 billion by the research and advisory firm Gartner found that many have reduced their workforce irrespective of AI adoption. While 80% of those surveyed who have piloted an AI or autonomous technology have reported workforce reductions, the businesses cut jobs due to automation regardless of whether the technology was actually generating returns.
“Looking only at layoffs is shortsighted in terms of getting value from AI,” Helen Poitevin, VP analyst at Gartner and a key researcher of the study, told Fortune. “Chasing value only through headcount reduction is likely to lead most organizations down a path of limited returns.”
The looming threat of AI automation has many employees fearing for their jobs. But a growing number of business leaders and economists are skeptical that the technology will actually spur layoffs. Apollo chief economist Torsten Slok recently argued the Jevons paradox: a 19th century theory that explained why the demand for coal increased even as steam engines became more efficient and coal became cheaper. The paradox also applies to the AI age, Slok argued, and it predicts the technology will lead to more jobs, not less.
Where companies see returns with AI implementation
Poitevin said the companies reporting high ROI were not the same ones reporting AI-related workforce reductions. In fact, workforce reduction rates were nearly equal for those reporting higher ROI and those with smaller returns or even worsened outcomes from autonomous operations.
“That’s not where the value is,” she said of layoffs. “That’s not where the productivity gains are going to be.”
Instead, the study found companies with the highest gains were those using AI as a form of “people amplification,” implementing the technology to make workers more productive rather than outright replacing them.
The current landscape of AI-related layoffs
There’s a growing divide today in how global business leaders are approaching AI adoption. In a separate Gartner survey of CEOs and other business executives, about one-third said they expect autonomous AI to help humans make decisions, but stop short of making those decisions independently. But another 27% said they expect AI to do exactly that, with minimal or no human involvement.
Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei recently walked back his controversial claim from last year that AI would wipe out half of white-collar entry-level roles. He instead said AI could augment work, referring to the Jevons paradox, though cautioning that AI is evolving at a faster rate than previous technologies and could consequently lead to different outcomes.
“When you strain a system more than, you know, than it’s usually strained, it’s possible you get these weird behaviors and this big disruption,” he said.
Layoffs attributed to AI have become a common practice, at least across Silicon Valley. Outplacement services company Challenger, Gray and Christmas found that AI was the leading reason for layoffs in March and April, and the total number of layoffs attributed to AI hit 49,135 for the full year. That’s nearly as much as the total for all AI-related layoffs the firm reported in 2025.
However, AI innovation isn’t the sole reason for layoffs in this category; layoffs attributed to heightened AI spending has become a trend across hyperscalers allocating a high percentage of their budgets on the AI infrastructure buildout. As a result, companies like Microsoft and Meta have said they needed to cut headcount to free up cash. There’s also the possibility that many of these layoffs are attributed to AI but are in reality inspired by other underlying motivations in a stunt known as “AI washing.” That’s what Sam Altman said in an interview earlier from February.
“I don’t know what the exact percentage is, but there’s some AI washing where people are blaming AI for layoffs that they would otherwise do, and then there’s some real displacement by AI of different kinds of jobs,” he said.
But Poitevin said the data shows these layoffs, even if related to AI, appear to be a way companies are testing the waters with AI rather than initiating a structural reset.
“It seems to us to be a kind of one-time exercise by many in small amounts,” she said, “but not what translates to getting full ROI from their AI investment.”