There's a term in the industry: "AI washing". It's when a company lays people off because businesses isn't doing well and share prices are down and publicly explains it as "AI efficiency" to make it sound better to the stakeholders.
This post used a couple of confirmed AI washing examples as the evidence that jobs are becoming obsolete because of AI, including the one from Coinbase, where the so-called "AI efficiency layoff" coincided with the crypto market having been down for a while.
Then I googled the author. Head of growth at Lovable. A company whose entitire business model depends on convincing the public that their product can, somehow, replace real software engineers.
I agree that “AI washing” is real. Some companies absolutely use AI as a cleaner narrative for layoffs that are really driven by macro conditions, profitability pressure, or bad business performance.
But I also think it’s a mistake to conclude from that that AI is having no impact on jobs or role expectations.
And to clarify: I don’t think software engineers are going away. If anything, I think demand for engineers increases as more people start building software and more products make it to the point where they need scale, reliability, architecture, security, and maintainability.
What tools like Lovable change is who gets to participate in software creation. The same way Canva didn’t eliminate designers, but dramatically expanded the number of people who could produce design work.
The point of the post was: the shape of many jobs is changing quickly, so people should proactively adapt instead of assuming the market will stay static.
Yo thank you so much for digging into this and figuring out who is really behind this messaging. I really do appreciate it, especially in this current time where it seems like every SubStack or Linked-In article about AI is basically someone using "threat porn marketing" to try to scare people into adopting AI.
It's a perfect small example of what's happening now, which is AI companies and their leaders plus investors germinating this message of "AI is imminent and taking everyone's livelihood so you have no choice but to get on board."
Yes, AI is a transformational technology, but it's also the investor and corporate owner class' current best opportunity to exploit an emerging technology for their own greedy purposes. You could also call it their latest grift, and I use that harsh terminology because so many of these people have had no issue with constant AI fear mongering, lying about AI statistics, lying about their company's layoffs, lying about environmental impact, etc.
In this niche example, the author of this post had to find out from readers that "You'll Lose Your Job In 2027" is an insensitive title. Really??? Should we be taking any advice from someone who didn't suspect that during two years full of layoffs, a title about your upcoming firing might be a little inconsiderate?
This author might not be a CEO or big corporate tech investor but is obviously a-ok with carrying their water to push a message that causes even more distress to people who are living through very unsavory times at this moment.
Instead of spending time finding clever ways to threaten, frighten, and distress people into using their employers' product, maybe read the room a little bit and find out how people really feel about AI. Here's a start: just Google "college grads boo AI" to find out how enthusiastic people really are about this technology.
And to be fully transparent, I use AI a lot, and even wrote an article about it on this platform. It's amazing technology. But what I did not do is callously attempt to use a rage bait title to generate views. Why does a transformational technology need people scaring the public into submission? Maybe it does when your startup's burn rate is increasing while its runway is decreasing. Or when you're worried that your big investment in data centers isn't paying off as fast as projected.
I don't know, but I do hope that people who are being the most impacted (negatively) by the careless, callous, and selfish decisions of these AI snake oil salesmen--who have been remarkably out of touch with not even the average middle class life, but even high middle class life--start understanding that it is possible to reject this crap and start finding ways to advance this technology without destroying lives in the process. Maybe start laying-off CEOs and executives instead of thousands of hardworking people, because, according to Anthropic's Claude, a whole lot of executive functions can be made more efficient, cheaper, and redundant but aren't because they are the decision makers who magically seem to come out unscathed from any bad decisions they make. I wonder how that is happening 😏
I’ve followed you, Elena, across platforms for a while, and a lot of your advice genuinely resonates with me. I also attended your AI-native talk and have been applying many of those learnings myself.
That’s why I agree with the core substance of this article. But I wish the piece also acknowledged the anxiety this kind of messaging creates for people already navigating layoffs, market shifts, and an ongoing identity crisis around work.
As a headline, the urgency works. But for many readers, the tone lands less as motivating and more as destabilizing. Not everyone reading this is complacent. Many are already doing everything they can to adapt.
I understand the value of reverse-engineering your mind. That mindset can absolutely push people to evolve faster. But there also needs to be space for the reality that even if someone does everything “right,” parts of their skill set may still become irrelevant. That’s the part people are quietly struggling with.
My goal with the piece was not to dismiss existing anxiety, but to encourage people to focus on building adaptability and optionality instead of assuming stability will return. We are still very early and there are lots of opportunities ahead.
I am tired of fear-mongering posts like this. The more I hear 'AI will take your job' the more I want to fight it. I am not saying that AI is bad, but the promise was that AI will help us, not replace us or makes us run even faster just to stay in one place.
Let's face it, this technology is not about benefiting average people, its a lot more about extracting even more value from us. I started donating: https://www.stopai.info/. I suggest you do the same. This BS needs to stop and be regulated.
I understand the reaction. A lot of people are exhausted by nonstop “AI is taking your job” discourse, especially when it’s delivered without empathy for the real human impact.
My point was not “AI good, humans bad.” It was that these changes are already happening, and people are better served by proactively building adaptability and optionality than pretending the market will stay static.
And honestly, I agree with part of your criticism. There is absolutely a risk that companies use AI primarily to extract more output from fewer people. That tension is real.
But while those debates play out, individuals still need practical strategies for navigating the world as it actually exists today.
I’m on the hopeful side of this. Solopreneurship is hard, but full of benefits and payoffs my full time work just didn’t offer. And a portfolio career — what you have, what I have, stacks of income streams — derisks so much of the income instability.
Maybe worth a share here too: I’m building manualoverride.co for this set of people and this very real challenge of going from employee to entrepreneur. Would be so fun to get you involved.
One thing I appreciate here is that this doesn’t frame AI as “the end of work,” but more like the end of static jobs. A lot of people are already experiencing this quietly: same title, same company… completely different expectations.
As someone who’s trying to figure this out for myself right now, this was really helpful to read. It gave me a clearer way to think about IC work not as a fallback or a “less ambitious” path, but as a valid and flexible way to build a meaningful career. Thank you for writing this.
Precisely why you see me here, building products and community. After my first layoff, I ended up consulting, and it was the best thing I ever did for my family and my income. It was my highest earning year ever.
This piece is useful precisely because it doesn't soften it. "Even if you keep your seat, your actual job is going to change. A lot." That distinction matters — job security and role stability are two separate questions, and most advice conflates them.
What I see in coaching is the third thing: people who kept the seat, watched the role change, and now don't recognise the work they're doing. The practical adaptation is one problem. The identity question arrives separately.
Honestly this is the first piece on AI and work that left me feeling less anxious, not more. The tier framework gives people a real entry point instead of a vague mandate to 'adopt AI.'
Great post (& title)! I think a lot of this is spot on, and whilst it’s going to be a big change - I think it can also be a really positive thing for people. How many jobs in tech are really that great when you look closely? How much time do you really work on the stuff you enjoy and are good at? My last few ‘real jobs’ ended up being more than half the time in meetings, admin and changing direction every few weeks based on whatever leadership thought was important at the time 😩
Changing a headline just because some people didn’t like it is an invitation for more trouble later in my experience.
The reaction is useful data for the next one, but if nobody reacts strongly to a headline anymore, it usually means it was weak or too polished.
And the bigger point in the piece feels true as well. A lot of people are still treating AI like a distant shift instead of something already changing what companies expect from them now.
I get it, even a handful of negative comments can feel overwhelming and personal. It also means your writing touched a nerve, which is what good writing does. And that first version of the headline will always live somewhere on the internet (case in point, I had it via Lenny's Newsletter cross-post). A few level-headed peers can always be reassuring when the pressure gets to you. Feel free to reach out, I know how it feels.
There's a term in the industry: "AI washing". It's when a company lays people off because businesses isn't doing well and share prices are down and publicly explains it as "AI efficiency" to make it sound better to the stakeholders.
This post used a couple of confirmed AI washing examples as the evidence that jobs are becoming obsolete because of AI, including the one from Coinbase, where the so-called "AI efficiency layoff" coincided with the crypto market having been down for a while.
Then I googled the author. Head of growth at Lovable. A company whose entitire business model depends on convincing the public that their product can, somehow, replace real software engineers.
That explains it.
I agree that “AI washing” is real. Some companies absolutely use AI as a cleaner narrative for layoffs that are really driven by macro conditions, profitability pressure, or bad business performance.
But I also think it’s a mistake to conclude from that that AI is having no impact on jobs or role expectations.
And to clarify: I don’t think software engineers are going away. If anything, I think demand for engineers increases as more people start building software and more products make it to the point where they need scale, reliability, architecture, security, and maintainability.
What tools like Lovable change is who gets to participate in software creation. The same way Canva didn’t eliminate designers, but dramatically expanded the number of people who could produce design work.
The point of the post was: the shape of many jobs is changing quickly, so people should proactively adapt instead of assuming the market will stay static.
Glad someone else is feeling skeptical too.
Yo thank you so much for digging into this and figuring out who is really behind this messaging. I really do appreciate it, especially in this current time where it seems like every SubStack or Linked-In article about AI is basically someone using "threat porn marketing" to try to scare people into adopting AI.
It's a perfect small example of what's happening now, which is AI companies and their leaders plus investors germinating this message of "AI is imminent and taking everyone's livelihood so you have no choice but to get on board."
Yes, AI is a transformational technology, but it's also the investor and corporate owner class' current best opportunity to exploit an emerging technology for their own greedy purposes. You could also call it their latest grift, and I use that harsh terminology because so many of these people have had no issue with constant AI fear mongering, lying about AI statistics, lying about their company's layoffs, lying about environmental impact, etc.
In this niche example, the author of this post had to find out from readers that "You'll Lose Your Job In 2027" is an insensitive title. Really??? Should we be taking any advice from someone who didn't suspect that during two years full of layoffs, a title about your upcoming firing might be a little inconsiderate?
This author might not be a CEO or big corporate tech investor but is obviously a-ok with carrying their water to push a message that causes even more distress to people who are living through very unsavory times at this moment.
Instead of spending time finding clever ways to threaten, frighten, and distress people into using their employers' product, maybe read the room a little bit and find out how people really feel about AI. Here's a start: just Google "college grads boo AI" to find out how enthusiastic people really are about this technology.
And to be fully transparent, I use AI a lot, and even wrote an article about it on this platform. It's amazing technology. But what I did not do is callously attempt to use a rage bait title to generate views. Why does a transformational technology need people scaring the public into submission? Maybe it does when your startup's burn rate is increasing while its runway is decreasing. Or when you're worried that your big investment in data centers isn't paying off as fast as projected.
I don't know, but I do hope that people who are being the most impacted (negatively) by the careless, callous, and selfish decisions of these AI snake oil salesmen--who have been remarkably out of touch with not even the average middle class life, but even high middle class life--start understanding that it is possible to reject this crap and start finding ways to advance this technology without destroying lives in the process. Maybe start laying-off CEOs and executives instead of thousands of hardworking people, because, according to Anthropic's Claude, a whole lot of executive functions can be made more efficient, cheaper, and redundant but aren't because they are the decision makers who magically seem to come out unscathed from any bad decisions they make. I wonder how that is happening 😏
I'm not sure there's been any major AI related layoff yet. Hiring of new college grads has dramatically slowed but that’s not the same thing
I’ve followed you, Elena, across platforms for a while, and a lot of your advice genuinely resonates with me. I also attended your AI-native talk and have been applying many of those learnings myself.
That’s why I agree with the core substance of this article. But I wish the piece also acknowledged the anxiety this kind of messaging creates for people already navigating layoffs, market shifts, and an ongoing identity crisis around work.
As a headline, the urgency works. But for many readers, the tone lands less as motivating and more as destabilizing. Not everyone reading this is complacent. Many are already doing everything they can to adapt.
I understand the value of reverse-engineering your mind. That mindset can absolutely push people to evolve faster. But there also needs to be space for the reality that even if someone does everything “right,” parts of their skill set may still become irrelevant. That’s the part people are quietly struggling with.
Thank you for this thoughtful feedback.
My goal with the piece was not to dismiss existing anxiety, but to encourage people to focus on building adaptability and optionality instead of assuming stability will return. We are still very early and there are lots of opportunities ahead.
I tried to let myself go but I showed up the next day anyway. Real go-getter.
Bummer!
I am tired of fear-mongering posts like this. The more I hear 'AI will take your job' the more I want to fight it. I am not saying that AI is bad, but the promise was that AI will help us, not replace us or makes us run even faster just to stay in one place.
Let's face it, this technology is not about benefiting average people, its a lot more about extracting even more value from us. I started donating: https://www.stopai.info/. I suggest you do the same. This BS needs to stop and be regulated.
I understand the reaction. A lot of people are exhausted by nonstop “AI is taking your job” discourse, especially when it’s delivered without empathy for the real human impact.
My point was not “AI good, humans bad.” It was that these changes are already happening, and people are better served by proactively building adaptability and optionality than pretending the market will stay static.
And honestly, I agree with part of your criticism. There is absolutely a risk that companies use AI primarily to extract more output from fewer people. That tension is real.
But while those debates play out, individuals still need practical strategies for navigating the world as it actually exists today.
I’m on the hopeful side of this. Solopreneurship is hard, but full of benefits and payoffs my full time work just didn’t offer. And a portfolio career — what you have, what I have, stacks of income streams — derisks so much of the income instability.
Also, love the “mom and pop saas” framing.
Maybe worth a share here too: I’m building manualoverride.co for this set of people and this very real challenge of going from employee to entrepreneur. Would be so fun to get you involved.
Following!!!!
One thing I appreciate here is that this doesn’t frame AI as “the end of work,” but more like the end of static jobs. A lot of people are already experiencing this quietly: same title, same company… completely different expectations.
agreed - its the different type of work.
As someone who’s trying to figure this out for myself right now, this was really helpful to read. It gave me a clearer way to think about IC work not as a fallback or a “less ambitious” path, but as a valid and flexible way to build a meaningful career. Thank you for writing this.
thank you for reading and glad it was helpful.
I wrote a piece that discusses the rising importance of working for a product you care about!
https://anishasinghal.substack.com/p/working-for-a-product-rather-than?r=5jwtbj&utm_medium=ios
Precisely why you see me here, building products and community. After my first layoff, I ended up consulting, and it was the best thing I ever did for my family and my income. It was my highest earning year ever.
so good to hear! go you!
This piece is useful precisely because it doesn't soften it. "Even if you keep your seat, your actual job is going to change. A lot." That distinction matters — job security and role stability are two separate questions, and most advice conflates them.
What I see in coaching is the third thing: people who kept the seat, watched the role change, and now don't recognise the work they're doing. The practical adaptation is one problem. The identity question arrives separately.
thank you for reading!
This is spot on!
Honestly this is the first piece on AI and work that left me feeling less anxious, not more. The tier framework gives people a real entry point instead of a vague mandate to 'adopt AI.'
thank you for reading
Noice 💎👏
Great post (& title)! I think a lot of this is spot on, and whilst it’s going to be a big change - I think it can also be a really positive thing for people. How many jobs in tech are really that great when you look closely? How much time do you really work on the stuff you enjoy and are good at? My last few ‘real jobs’ ended up being more than half the time in meetings, admin and changing direction every few weeks based on whatever leadership thought was important at the time 😩
Great post. Already shared with a CEO i know who is having trouble getting his team to adopt AI
Do you think that threatening said employees with their jobs is a good way to make them use the job-replacing machine
https://youtu.be/hBGd3DCgRkM?si=1mcxpYftb3rKhiVJ
Changing a headline just because some people didn’t like it is an invitation for more trouble later in my experience.
The reaction is useful data for the next one, but if nobody reacts strongly to a headline anymore, it usually means it was weak or too polished.
And the bigger point in the piece feels true as well. A lot of people are still treating AI like a distant shift instead of something already changing what companies expect from them now.
fair... but I got so much backlash personally over it that I just couldn't take it.
I get it, even a handful of negative comments can feel overwhelming and personal. It also means your writing touched a nerve, which is what good writing does. And that first version of the headline will always live somewhere on the internet (case in point, I had it via Lenny's Newsletter cross-post). A few level-headed peers can always be reassuring when the pressure gets to you. Feel free to reach out, I know how it feels.