In customer experience, cost savings don’t mean much if loyalty declines.

Gladly helps brands achieve both—maximizing efficiency and lifetime value.

With 240M+ conversations powered and $510M in cost savings delivered, Gladly has the evidence that customer engagement, not deflection, drives stronger economics. Our unified architecture and context-aware AI enable brands to serve customers faster, more personally, and with higher satisfaction—without compromising long-term profitability.

Explore the awards, research, and momentum behind this shift in our Media Kit.

Explore media kit

Listen, when the godfather of AI quits Google to warn you about what's coming, you pay attention. Geoffrey Hinton—the guy who literally built the neural networks powering today's AI—isn't worried about robot overlords or sentient machines. He's worried about something way more immediate: 2026 might be the year millions of people wake up to find their jobs simply don't exist anymore.

Here's the thing: this isn't some distant sci-fi scenario. It's happening right now.

Hinton's core argument is straightforward and terrifying. AI systems are doubling their capability roughly every seven months. Tasks that took an hour now take minutes. Projects that needed days will soon take hours. He points to software engineering as the canary in the coal mine—AI went from handling one-minute coding tasks to completing hour-long projects. Within a few years? It'll knock out work that currently takes months.

But here's the kicker: this isn't your grandparents' automation story. Industrial robots replaced factory workers. Early computers replaced typists. This wave? It's coming for the knowledge workers—the writers, analysts, customer service reps, and programmers. The people who thought their cognitive skills made them safe.

They were wrong.

About 14% of workers already experienced AI-related job displacement in 2025. Not "might experience." Already did. The tech sector alone saw 77,999 job losses directly attributed to AI in just the first half of the year. At least 30% of U.S. companies have replaced workers with AI tools like ChatGPT, and that number's projected to hit 37% by the end of 2026.

These aren't pilot programs. IBM publicly committed to replacing 7,800 back-office positions—30% of those roles—with AI over five years. British Telecom announced plans to cut 55,000 jobs by decade's end, with 10,000 explicitly replaced by AI. Companies are announcing these moves to investors like they're quarterly earnings beats.

The pattern's clear: customer service roles face 80% automation risk by 2025. Data entry? 7.5 million jobs gone by 2027. Entry-level positions across sectors are getting decimated, which creates a vicious cycle—if there are no junior roles, how does the next generation learn the skills to advance?

Hinton's central warning isn't that AI will displace jobs—every economist agrees on that eventually. His warning is about the pace. Governments, institutions, and workers simply aren't adapting fast enough. The technology is being deployed faster than societies can respond through retraining, policy adjustment, or economic transition.

Here's where it gets complicated: only about 10% of companies were regularly using AI as of mid-2025, yet 88% are experimenting with it. Most organizations implementing AI focus on just 2-4 critical workflows, recognizing that wholesale transformation exceeds what they can actually manage. So implementation is uneven—some companies moving aggressively, others still in pilot phases.

But—and this matters—37% of firms have committed to replacing workers by end of 2026. Not planned. Committed. Business leaders conducted layoffs throughout 2025, 35% expect more before year-end, and 58% believe layoffs are likely in 2026. There's a dangerous gap between capability deployment (measured and deliberate) and planned workforce reduction (accelerating fast).

The inequality angle makes this even grimmer. Women hold 58.87 million positions exposed to AI automation compared to 48.62 million for men. Black and Latino workers are overrepresented in vulnerable roles while underrepresented in emerging AI positions. And those 350,000 new AI-related jobs everyone keeps mentioning? 77% require master's degrees.

So entry-level workers lose their development pathway, then discover they're locked out of the new opportunities anyway. You end up with a bifurcated labor market: highly educated workers transitioning to AI oversight roles while hundreds of millions of displaced workers find no bridge to the new economy.

As Hinton bluntly put it: "The big companies are betting on massive job replacement because that's where the big money is." The fundamental financial incentive isn't selling AI subscriptions or productivity tools—it's eliminating payroll entirely.

If Hinton's timeline proves accurate, here's the pattern: unemployment rises modestly on paper—maybe from 4.6% to 5%—which sounds manageable. But that surface number masks catastrophic sectoral disruption. Companies execute their committed workforce reductions in Q2 and Q3, creating a mid-year displacement wave. High-growth AI infrastructure roles expand, but nowhere near enough to absorb displaced workers. The skills gap proves unbridgeable for most people in the short term.

By Q4 2026, the conversation shifts from "Is AI displacing workers?" to "What emergency policies can we implement?"

The critical question isn't whether this transition happens—it's whether it happens in manageable phases or so rapidly that millions lack any pathway forward. Previous technological revolutions destroyed job categories while creating new ones. Economies eventually adapted. Hinton's counterargument? AI's generality is different. It can theoretically handle entire job categories simultaneously. Multiple decades of economic transition compressed into multiple years.

We're about to find out if he's right.