I've seen this playbook before. In 2010, every layoff was because of "the economy." In 2020, it was "COVID uncertainty." Now it's AI.

Companies are increasingly blaming AI for layoffs, but economists say many of these cuts have nothing to do with automation. It's "AI-washing" — using AI as cover for standard cost-cutting while avoiding backlash and potentially boosting stock prices.

Blaming algorithms is perfect: it sounds inevitable, sophisticated, and removes human accountability.

Here's the pattern. Company announces AI initiative. Company announces layoffs. Company implies the two are connected. Stock goes up because investors hear "efficiency gains." Employees lose jobs. And nobody has to take responsibility because, hey, it was the algorithm's decision.

But when you actually look at which jobs are being cut, they're often in departments where AI couldn't replace a houseplant.

Customer service? Sure, chatbots can handle basic queries. But companies were offshoring those jobs long before ChatGPT existed. Middle management? AI isn't making strategic decisions. Marketing? Content moderation? HR? These are cuts that would have happened anyway, dressed up in AI language to make them sound strategic rather than desperate.

The real tell? Companies announcing AI layoffs while simultaneously hiring more engineers to build the AI that supposedly made those workers redundant.

Let me be clear: AI is changing job markets. Models can write code, generate marketing copy, summarize documents, and automate workflows that used to require human judgment. Some jobs will disappear. Some roles will fundamentally change. That's real.

But that's not what we're seeing with AI-washing. We're seeing companies use "AI" as a euphemism for "we're cutting costs and don't want to say it's about quarterly earnings."

It's brilliant, really. "We're laying you off because we missed our numbers" sounds bad. "We're laying you off because AI can do your job" sounds like progress. Same outcome, better optics.