When Kevin Cantera, a researcher from Las Cruces, New Mexico, embraced artificial intelligence at work, he believed he was securing his future. Encouraged by his superiors at an edtech company to experiment with ChatGPT, he quickly became adept at using the tool to enhance productivity and streamline tasks. But his mastery of the very technology that made him more efficient eventually cost him his job.
According to a Washington Post work advice column, Cantera was one of several long-serving employees replaced by a large language model after nearly 17 years at the company. The decision came just months after his boss reassured him that AI would not take his role.
‘An Incredible Tool for Me as a Writer’
Cantera told The Washington Post that he had grown to rely on ChatGPT as a creative and analytical partner. “It was an incredible tool for me as a writer,” he said. He had learned to craft precise prompts that minimized errors and “hallucinations” in the AI’s responses. Instead of treating the system as a threat, he viewed it as a collaborator. “My productivity was off the charts,” he said.
Ironically, the tool he mastered to amplify his work became the one that made his position redundant.
The Human Cost of Efficiency
Cantera’s story as reported by Futurism and The Washington Post, highlights a growing paradox of the AI revolution. Across industries, employees are being encouraged to adopt AI tools to improve output — only to later find themselves replaced by the very systems they helped optimize.
“Bosses the world over are firing their grunts and gleefully replacing them with unproven AI agents,” Futurism reported, noting that many organizations are trimming workforces and expecting the remaining staff to compensate with AI assistance.
But research suggests the trade-off may not be as efficient as promised. An MIT study cited by Futurism found that 95 percent of companies integrating AI saw no significant revenue growth, while others faced new workflow challenges caused by error-prone AI-generated content — what experts have begun calling “workslop.”
The Fear of Unchecked Automation
Cantera now worries that his former company may be leaning too heavily on machine output without human oversight. “It is absolutely terrifying to think they could be relying on the model’s output without any true subject-matter expert review,” he said. Many of his former colleagues — including researchers with years of specialized experience — were also dismissed.
His fears reflect a broader concern across industries: that in the rush to cut costs and embrace automation, companies may sacrifice quality and human judgment for short-term savings.
Cantera’s experience poses a difficult question for today’s professionals: should employees resist using AI tools to protect their roles, or embrace them to remain relevant — even at the risk of making themselves replaceable?
As Futurism report concludes, “If they’re probably planning on replacing you anyway, you may as well go out on your own terms.”
According to a Washington Post work advice column, Cantera was one of several long-serving employees replaced by a large language model after nearly 17 years at the company. The decision came just months after his boss reassured him that AI would not take his role.
‘An Incredible Tool for Me as a Writer’
Cantera told The Washington Post that he had grown to rely on ChatGPT as a creative and analytical partner. “It was an incredible tool for me as a writer,” he said. He had learned to craft precise prompts that minimized errors and “hallucinations” in the AI’s responses. Instead of treating the system as a threat, he viewed it as a collaborator. “My productivity was off the charts,” he said.
Ironically, the tool he mastered to amplify his work became the one that made his position redundant.
The Human Cost of Efficiency
Cantera’s story as reported by Futurism and The Washington Post, highlights a growing paradox of the AI revolution. Across industries, employees are being encouraged to adopt AI tools to improve output — only to later find themselves replaced by the very systems they helped optimize.
“Bosses the world over are firing their grunts and gleefully replacing them with unproven AI agents,” Futurism reported, noting that many organizations are trimming workforces and expecting the remaining staff to compensate with AI assistance.
But research suggests the trade-off may not be as efficient as promised. An MIT study cited by Futurism found that 95 percent of companies integrating AI saw no significant revenue growth, while others faced new workflow challenges caused by error-prone AI-generated content — what experts have begun calling “workslop.”
The Fear of Unchecked Automation
Cantera now worries that his former company may be leaning too heavily on machine output without human oversight. “It is absolutely terrifying to think they could be relying on the model’s output without any true subject-matter expert review,” he said. Many of his former colleagues — including researchers with years of specialized experience — were also dismissed.
His fears reflect a broader concern across industries: that in the rush to cut costs and embrace automation, companies may sacrifice quality and human judgment for short-term savings.
Cantera’s experience poses a difficult question for today’s professionals: should employees resist using AI tools to protect their roles, or embrace them to remain relevant — even at the risk of making themselves replaceable?
As Futurism report concludes, “If they’re probably planning on replacing you anyway, you may as well go out on your own terms.”
You may also like
Bumrah should be rested for 2nd Test as he is extremely valuable: Nayar
Princess Kate shows support to Victoria Beckham in 'bold' trouser suit in trending autumn colour
Top 7+ Google Gemini AI Prompts for Karwa Chauth Couple Photos
Woman, 20, warned others about party drug days before it killed her
All Creatures Great and Small star Gaia Wise has very famous parents
