The AI jobs crisis that many tech leaders warned about still looks messy, uneven, and hard to define. Yet layoffs tied to AI keep growing.
The latest example comes from Wix. The website builder plans to cut about 20% of its workforce, or roughly 1,000 employees. CEO Avishai Abrahami called the move a “hard decision.” He repeated that phrase several times in a post on X.
Abrahami gave two main reasons for the cuts.
The first had little to do with AI. Wix, an Israeli company, earns much of its revenue in US dollars but pays many expenses in Israeli shekels. The shekel has gained strength against the dollar in recent quarters. That shift has raised operating costs and put pressure on the company’s finances.
The second reason sounded familiar across the tech industry: AI.
Abrahami said AI has created the biggest change in company building since modern programming languages emerged in the 1970s. In his view, this shift goes far beyond new software tools. He argued that AI changes how firms think, manage teams, and run daily operations.
His message followed a pattern now common among tech executives. Companies must move faster. Teams must shrink. Management layers must disappear. Organizations must become leaner and flatter to stay competitive.
Whether workers find that argument convincing is another question.
Corporate Layoffs and the Search for Tangible Returns
Wix’s announcement arrived only days after OpenAI CEO Sam Altman expressed relief that the AI jobs apocalypse he predicted had not yet arrived. Altman pointed to a labor market that, while changing, has not collapsed under the weight of automation.
Still, the broader picture tells a more complicated story.
Tech companies have already announced nearly 116,000 layoffs in 2026. That figure sits close to the roughly 124,000 cuts recorded during all of 2025. Not every job loss stems from AI. Economic pressure, changing markets, and cost control also play major roles.
Yet AI appears again and again in company explanations.
Some firms point to direct automation. Others shift money, staff, and priorities toward AI products and infrastructure. In both cases, workers often feel the impact.
Wix is not alone in using this language.
Earlier this year, Block cut more than 4,000 jobs. Its co-founder, Jack Dorsey, framed the move as a practical response to long-term automation. He argued that a large reduction now would be better than smaller rounds of layoffs spread across several years.
These statements raise a broader question: are companies cutting jobs because AI already delivers major gains, or because leaders believe it soon will?
The answer remains unclear.
Many companies continue to pour huge sums into AI systems, data centers, and software development. Yet measurable returns remain difficult to prove.
Executive Expectations, Workforce Shifts, and the Wixx Perspective
A January survey found that more than half of participating CEOs said AI adoption had not increased revenue or reduced costs. That result points to a gap between executive expectations and business outcomes.
Uber has faced similar concerns. Like many firms racing to expand AI programs, it still faces questions about how much value these investments actually create.
Despite that uncertainty, business leaders expect workforce changes to continue. A recent survey of nearly 1,000 executives found that 99% expect some level of headcount reduction within the next two years.
That number does not guarantee a mass unemployment event driven by AI. Companies have predicted sweeping technology shifts before. Reality often moves slower than forecasts.
Still, the trend deserves attention.
The debate no longer centers on whether AI affects jobs. It already does. The harder question is how deep the changes will run, who will benefit, and which workers will bear the cost.
For now, the AI jobs apocalypse that some leaders warned about has not fully arrived. But layoffs tied to AI strategy, restructuring, and automation continue to spread through the tech sector.
That gap between prediction and reality may define the current AI era: widespread disruption, strong executive belief, and limited proof that the technology delivers the financial results many companies expected.
