A CEO With $100M in Revenue Says AI Job Loss Is Overhyped. Geoffrey Hinton Disagrees, and So Does the Math.

Sean Frank runs a company doing over a hundred million dollars in annual revenue, and he wants you to know he hasn't fired a single person because of AI. His post on X this week — structured like a listicle, delivered like a verdict — racked up hundreds of likes from people clearly relieved to hear it. "AI job loss is overhyped," he wrote. "We have fired zero people because of AI. We have fired people for refusing to do the work on their job description. We have fired people for being bad at their jobs." The framing is doing a lot of work. Frank isn't saying AI hasn't changed his company — he's saying the people who left deserved to leave. The distinction matters enormously, and the applause it received suggests a lot of people in management are hungry for exactly this kind of permission structure. The problem is that {{beat:ai-job-displacement|the job displacement conversation}} keeps producing stories that don't fit Frank's frame. In Northern {{entity:california|California}}, 2,400 mental health workers at {{entity:healthcare|Kaiser Permanente}} have been without a contract since last September, and one of the central sticking points in negotiations is Kaiser's stated interest in replacing therapist roles with AI. That's not a firing — it's a negotiating position. It doesn't show up in Frank's zero count. It shows up in a union fight. The mechanism by which AI displaces workers isn't always a pink slip; sometimes it's a contract clause, a restructured job description, a role that simply doesn't get backfilled. Frank's metric — firings attributable to AI — may be the least useful way to measure what's actually happening. The optimism caucus on X is busy building alternative framings. One post advising people to "learn animation and design" as the surest path to job security reads as genuine, but the underlying logic — that there exists a stable island of high-skill work AI won't reach — requires believing the frontier stops somewhere convenient. {{story:ceo-100m-revenue-says-ai-job-loss-overhyped-afd7|This tension between the executive view and the labor reality}} is becoming one of the defining fault lines in how companies talk publicly about AI adoption. The reassurances tend to come from people whose jobs aren't being restructured away; the anxiety tends to come from people who found out their role was on the table during a contract negotiation, not a town hall. What Frank's post actually reveals isn't that AI displacement is a myth — it's that the people with the most visibility into hiring decisions are also the people with the strongest incentive to describe those decisions as merit-based. Firing someone for "refusing to do the work on their job description" sounds different when the job description changed because a tool can now do half of it. The Kaiser workers aren't being fired for performance. They're being asked to accept a future in which their profession is optional. That's a harder story to compress into a tweet, which is probably why Frank's version is winning on engagement.