If this is true, it’s very temporary, when people realise AI is mostly hype.
This not how the blog post the article is based on reads. It’s so far off you could call it a lie.
(https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/blog/date/2026/html/ecb.blog20260304~d9e34fc95f.pt.html)
As things stand, based on firms’ overall hiring plans, investment in and the intensive use of AI are not ** yet ** replacing jobs.
So how can we square our findings with some of the gloomier studies? The literature on AI and employment yields mixed results, owing to variations in the time horizons over which the effects are likely to be felt, the geographical areas covered and the research topics explored.
I would be very careful with hiring as an indicator of a company’s well-being. How many ghost jobs have you experienced where their company wasn’t hiring, and just sent you through some bullshit process? With zero intention of ever hiring anyone, they need the hiring to signal to investors or banks that they are doing well, such that they can get financing. It is seldom that they are actually hiring.
Why because they have so many fires to put out from using AI?
Or they need employees to expand that AI integration, since management is obviously onboard with it. Or they literally just have hype and the economy is booming, and can hire because of it.
The irony of using an obviosly AI generated image in the article.
It’s a pro-AI article, so it’s not ironic at all, but rather fitting.
Unexpected. It’s probably down to who has investor money to spend on new hires, TBH.
If it lasts that will be WTF, because AI that does nothing should actually just leave hiring about where it is, and AI that does something should lead to layoffs.
It says in the article that they don’t see any productivity gains, yet keep pushing ai. Weird but ok.
Also funny how this gets voted down because it highlights a positive thing with ai. People keep confusing the “disagree” and “downvote” buttons.
