### The AI Scapegoat: Why 55,000 Layoffs Are Really on the CFOs, Not the Code

The headlines are stark and designed to grab your attention: “AI Responsible for Thousands of Job Cuts.” A recent report tallied the number, suggesting that in the last year, around 55,000 workers have been let go with artificial intelligence cited as a contributing factor. The narrative is simple and terrifying: the robots are here, and they’re coming for your job.

But this narrative is deceptively simple. While AI is a transformative technology, blaming it for these mass layoffs is like blaming the invention of the spreadsheet for an accountant’s downsizing decision. It’s a tool, not the decision-maker. The real story isn’t found in a server farm; it’s found in the C-suite, specifically in the office of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO).

For the past several years, the tech industry and beyond operated on a model of growth-at-all-costs, fueled by low interest rates and a flood of venture capital. Companies hired aggressively, expanding their workforces to capture market share. Now, the economic climate has shifted. Interest rates are up, capital is more expensive, and investors are no longer impressed by growth alone. They are demanding profitability.

This is where the CFO steps into the spotlight. The primary mandate of a CFO is to ensure the financial health and stability of the company. When the directive from the board and investors shifts from “grow” to “be profitable,” the CFO’s toolkit is brought out. The largest line item on almost any company’s balance sheet is payroll. Therefore, the quickest and most direct way to slash costs and boost margins is to reduce headcount.

These layoffs were likely on the table long before ChatGPT became a household name. The financial pressure was building, and cuts were becoming inevitable. But announcing layoffs due to poor forecasting, over-hiring, or simply to appease Wall Street sounds like a failure of management. It spooks the market and signals weakness.

Enter AI, the perfect, forward-thinking alibi.

By framing layoffs as a “restructuring for an AI-powered future,” a company transforms a story of financial distress into one of innovative strategy. It tells investors, “We are not weak; we are evolving. We are cutting legacy roles to invest in the technology of tomorrow.” This narrative can actually be rewarded by the stock market, as it signals a commitment to efficiency and future-proofing the business.

AI becomes a convenient scapegoat that deflects blame from executive decision-making. It’s an impersonal, unstoppable force of nature, an act of technological destiny rather than a deliberate choice made in a boardroom. It’s far easier to tell thousands of employees that their roles have been made obsolete by progress than to admit that the company overextended itself and now they must pay the price.

The reality is that current AI, for the most part, is not yet capable of fully replacing the complex, nuanced roles of 55,000 knowledge workers. It is an incredibly powerful tool for augmentation and efficiency, but it is not an autonomous replacement. The decision to cut a job is still a human one, driven by a financial calculation.

So while AI will undoubtedly continue to shape and reshape the workforce, we must be critical of the current narrative. The recent wave of layoffs isn’t a story about rogue algorithms taking over. It’s a classic story of economic cycles and corporate finance. The CFOs are pulling the levers of cost-cutting to meet new financial goals, and AI is simply the shiny, new justification they are using to sell the story. The code isn’t the culprit; the balance sheet is.