Ensinor Oy’s Post

....So what ??! "Entry-level workers are facing a ‘job-pocalypse’ due to companies favouring artificial intelligence systems over new hires, a new study of global business leaders shows. A new report by the British Standards Institution (BSI) has found that business leaders are prioritising automation through AI to fill skills gaps, in lieu of training for junior employees. The BSI polled more than 850 bosses in Australia, China, France, Germany, Japan, the UK, and the US, and found that 41% said AI is enabling headcount reductions. Nearly a third of all respondents reported that their organization now explores AI solutions before considering hiring a human. Two-fifths of leaders revealed that entry-level roles have already been reduced or cut due to efficiencies made by AI conducting research, admin and briefing tasks, and 43% expect this to happen in the next year. Susan Taylor Martin, CEO of BSI says: “AI represents an enormous opportunity for businesses globally, but as they chase greater productivity and efficiency, we must not lose sight of the fact that it is ultimately people who power progress. Our research makes clear that the tension between making the most of AI and enabling a flourishing workforce is the defining challenge of our time. There is an urgent need for long-term thinking and workforce investment, alongside investment in AI tools, to ensure sustainable and productive employment.” Worryingly for those trying to enter the jobs market, a quarter of business leaders said they believe most or all tasks done by an entry-level colleague could be performed by AI. A third suspect their own first job would not exist today, due to the rise of artificial intelligence tools. And… 55% said they felt that the benefits of implementing AI in organizations would be worth the disruptions to workforces. These findings will add to concerns that graduates face a workforce crisis as they battle AI in the labour market. A poll released in August found that half of UK adults fear AI will change, or eliminate, their jobs.'

15 percent of all American jobs (just above one in seven, and affecting 23.2 million people in total) are at risk of being displaced by automatic processes The types of job that most likely to be affected is one where at least half of the task list can be automated. This includes all forms of automation, including physical tools like robotics as well as artificial intelligence. This means the threat is nuanced, and, as many reports before have shown, some types of job are more at risk than others. For example, SHRM’s report estimates 39.7 percent of software development work is highly automated and at risk from AI, as is a similar share in “mathematical” occupations (financial analysis, perhaps). But just 7.3 percent of the work in the “education and library” professions is automated This might raise the specter of mass unemployment, with images not far removed from Great Depression-era poverty and unrest swirling in your head. But SHRM also notes that a “significant majority of employment faces nontechnical barriers to automation displacement This means that many types of work include processes, preferences, physical issues and so on that prevent the job being automated, and thus protects them from AI—at least for now. These types of work have emphasize “interpersonal skills and/or relatively low-tech tools,” such as “many education and health care occupations.” SHRM says “client preferences are the most common” reason for not worrying about AI encroaching on these jobs: people still prefer dealing with people he WEF thinks it’s time for a dramatic upheaval in the workplace, pivoting around the skills needed to operate AI tools. Think of it as the equivalent of the arrival of PCs and printers in the office: typewriters were no longer necessary, and a whole new skillset among workers of all types was needed, The adjustment required rethinking jobs and also reskilling workers on the new tech en masse

AI eliminates clerical jobs on Monday. Creates AI trainer positions on Tuesday. The disruption and opportunity happen simultaneously, not sequentially. This reality is hitting tech companies hard right now. In 2025, nearly 78,000 tech jobs were lost directly due to AI integration. Amazon and Microsoft led these cuts as they automated tasks previously done by humans. But here's what the headlines miss: 🔄 30% of US companies replaced workers with AI tools 🔄 But new roles emerged requiring AI literacy and data skills 🔄 Older workers adapted better than younger ones in AI-exposed sectors The shift isn't just about job loss. It's about transformation. Companies are hiring AI trainers, prompt engineers, and AI ethics specialists. These roles didn't exist two years ago. The workforce is splitting into two paths: • Those who learn to work with AI thrive • Those who resist get left behind Economists remain optimistic. History shows technology creates more jobs than it destroys. But the transition period is messy. The key? Start upskilling now. Don't wait for your job to be automated. What skills are you developing to stay relevant in an AI-driven world? #AI #FutureOfWork #TechJobs 𝗦𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲: https://lnkd.in/gKPQVJ4x

More than 1 in 4 workers are worried about skills becoming obsolete due to AI. Yet only 19% identify AI upskilling as a priority. This got me thinking. How does that work? The other stats mentioned: 58% of those surveyed were untrained, and 71% of New Zealand respondents believe employers should reskill workers whose roles are impacted by AI My view: There is a disconnect between people being worried and doing something about it. Workers are waiting for their employers to come to the rescue and provide them with training. By the time this happens, many will discover their skills have become obsolete. Solution: Take professional responsibility for upskilling ourselves. Go to your boss, and if they aren't providing professional development, put forward a case on how you will be more effective, efficient, and engaged. A saying I remembered from one of my favourite speakers Brian Tracy "Maturity is realising that nobody is coming to the rescue". What is one thing you can do today to move forward? Source: https://lnkd.in/gQveHXaX Thanks Mike Bayly for popping this in one of the AI Corner updates.

AI eliminates clerical jobs on Monday. Creates AI trainer positions on Tuesday. The disruption and opportunity happen simultaneously, not sequentially. This reality is hitting tech companies hard right now. In 2025, nearly 78,000 tech jobs were lost directly due to AI integration. Amazon and Microsoft led these cuts as they automated tasks previously done by humans. But here's what the headlines miss: 🔄 30% of US companies replaced workers with AI tools 🔄 But new roles emerged requiring AI literacy and data skills 🔄 Older workers adapted better than younger ones in AI-exposed sectors The shift isn't just about job loss. It's about transformation. Companies are hiring AI trainers, prompt engineers, and AI ethics specialists. These roles didn't exist two years ago. The workforce is splitting into two paths: • Those who learn to work with AI thrive • Those who resist get left behind Economists remain optimistic. History shows technology creates more jobs than it destroys. But the transition period is messy. The key? Start upskilling now. Don't wait for your job to be automated. What skills are you developing to stay relevant in an AI-driven world? #AI #FutureOfWork #TechJobs 𝗦𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲꞉ https://lnkd.in/diSyhBjB

During a recent induction session and following an AI literacy workshop I delivered, a student inquired about the continued relevance of a university education in light of AI's readily available information and the potential for AI to displace human workers. This was not the first time I was asked these questions by a student. Infact it is something that many students are grappling with whether they are new to University or are about to graduate with their much anticipated degree classification. These questions prompts a consideration of the value of a degree in the face of further disruptions brought by AI to what appears to be a 'crumbling sector.' These are significant questions that require nuanced responses. This anxiety stems from the perception that a degree’s primary purpose is securing immediate employment—a view that is fundamentally flawed. While a degree is undeniably a key to economic mobility, framing it merely as a vocational certificate devalues the critical thinking, ethical reasoning, and complex problem-solving it fosters. This reductive view exacerbates student anxiety. Crucially, the skills gap is not a technical problem solvable by AI; it is a structural, human-driven mismatch. Investing heavily in the promises of AI's future capabilities while neglecting the human intellect being developed in universities is a risky and shortsighted bet. Humans drive AI, not the other way around. The sustainable solution to overcome this 'meta-crisis' as I see it, is a deep proactive collaboration between the business sector and higher education. This means moving beyond recruitment to co-create curricula and fund embedded learning (placements/projects). Higher Education providers should be seen as essential partners in human capital development to ensure graduates are equipped to critically shape, lead, and ethically innovate within a circular economy.

As these jobs go away, the path into the world of work that once represented at least one route to the American Dream suddenly has no entry point and a much lower ceiling than it used to. Job postings for entry-level and early career roles are way down year over year. The market has pulled up the ladder for people trying to get in on the lower rungs, and the prospect of climbing it is getting harrowing, too. A recent report from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia found that AI exposure is over three times higher for occupations that require a bachelor’s degree compared with those that don’t. According to a study done by the Center for AI Safety, AI agents were only able to complete about 3% of the work assigned to them that humans can do reliably. Given that, it’s little surprise that a recent report published by research and advisory firm Forrester found that more than half of all employers who cut workers and tried to replace them with AI regret the decision. The same report predicted that those companies would bring back human labor, just at lower wages and potentially by farming out roles to overseas workers. Link to article by AJ Dellinger: https://lnkd.in/eebVE3Bx

“While automation increasingly takes on routine and technical tasks, it also creates space for people to focus on the skills that will matter most in tomorrow’s world. Namely, adaptability, creative problem-solving, as well as the ability to work with intelligent systems. These are precisely what humans do best, and they’ll be critical in tomorrow’s job market." - says Burkhard Boeckem, Hexagon CTO https://lnkd.in/e_qekWgG #AI #mamufacturing

I’ve been loving the new work coming out of Stanford’s Digital Economy Lab and The Budget Lab at Yale -- not because it shows dramatic change, but because it’s finally asking the right questions. The most honest conclusion we have right now about AI and labor is that we simply need more (and better) measurement and a readiness to support workers even before we have definitive answers. Going to spend the next few weeks sharing more here on my read on the work. Early shifts in AI-exposed jobs, especially at the entry level, are not proof that firms are “hiring AI instead of people.” Higher exposure predicts jobs where AI could plausibly reshape how firms think about junior work: 1/ jobs where most learning can happen off the job 2/ jobs where junior and senior work/tasks look pretty similar, with speed and polish as the main differences. Those are precisely the jobs where training data already exists -- where models can be trained if labs have access to the right data. So if those jobs are changing -- in number, scope, or quality -- it could reflect many forces. It might be delayed hiring, re-sequencing of skill development, or a rethinking of what early career work even is. It does not automatically follow that senior workers have suddenly become vastly more productive thanks to AI. This (correlation != causation) matters because it has real implications for how we design policy responses. If the symptom is that early career workers are struggling, then the right interventions should be tied to those workers -- new pathways, better training models, wage protections, smoother transitions -- rather than tied narrowly to AI -- subsidizing adoption, enforcing impact assessments, or chasing productivity metrics. If we assume the wrong mechanism, we will build the wrong response. The goal isn’t to respond to "AI." It’s to respond to what’s happening to workers. Bharat Chandar, Erik Brynjolfsson, Ruyu Chen, Martha Gimbel, Molly Kinder, Joshua Kendall, Madeline Lee