Skip to main content
NOPE
Medium reported severity

Junior developer says their employer told 17 staff in one video meeting that their roles were redundant because of AI (first-person account)

In a public post to r/cscareerquestions created on 17 October 2026, a person who says they joined a product company as an associate full-stack developer at the start of the year writes that, while still on probation, they were invited to a Microsoft Teams meeting 'regarding my employment' at which 17 staff were told that their roles were redundant because of AI and that they were no longer needed. The poster says they were writing the probation report due on the 23rd when it happened, that there was no prior hint, and that they feel upset, demotivated and frustrated. In replies the poster agrees with a commenter who suggests that AI was a cover for financial problems, and writes that the reasons given for sackings are not usually the real ones. The employer, its location and the date of the meeting are not stated, and the poster says they are not in the United States. The account is the poster's alone and uncorroborated; no employer statement was retrieved.

AI system
Unidentified AI system
Occurred
Event date unknown
Reported
17 October 2026
Event location
Unknown
What the AI did
Relation unknown
Reported harm
Professional HarmPsychological Distress
Whose AI use
An institution’s AI use
Setting
Work
Evidence
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source
4 claims: 4 reported. 5 open questions
People reported harmed
17 people

AI system as recorded: AI, which the poster says the employer gave as the reason the roles were redundant; no tool, product or use is described

What Happened

The meeting. The poster writes that they were placed at a product-based company as an associate full-stack developer at the start of the year, did an internship until August and were on a probation period due to end in November. "Out of nowhere I get a MS Teams meeting invitation "regarding my employment"." They continue: "Joined the meeting and they let 17 of us know that our roles are redundant because of AI and we are no longer needed."

Effect on the poster. The poster says they were writing their probation report, due on the 23rd, when they were told. They write: "I'm upset, demotivated and frustrated that stuff like this happens out of the blue. Not a single hint that I was going to get sacked but here I am now." They say their savings will keep them afloat for a while and that they will take some time off before looking for another job.

Doubts about the stated reason. Several commenters suggest the company may have used AI as a cover for financial problems. Replying to one of them, the poster writes: "Yeah I do have a feeling it is this. Regardless it sucks to be at the end of the axe." To a commenter who says business people see AI as "a magic wand that saves money", they reply: "The reasons they give for the sackings isn't usually what it is." Asked whether the other 16 were also new, the poster replies that they do not know but guess that at least two or three had worked there for a year or two. The poster says they are not in the US.

Reported harm

The poster says they lost their probationary job as a junior developer when their employer told them and 16 others that their roles were redundant because of AI, and that they feel upset and demotivated (first-person account, uncorroborated; the poster also suspects AI was a cover for other reasons).

Outcome

Ongoing

At the time of the post the poster had lost the job and planned to take time off, revise for technical interviews and look for another full-stack role, saying their savings would keep them afloat for a while. No employer statement, redundancy terms or new employment is reported.

What remains unknown

  • The employer, its industry and location.
  • The date of the meeting and whether any formal redundancy or consultation process took place.
  • What the employer meant by AI making the roles redundant, and whether any AI tool now does the work.
  • Whether the stated reason was the real reason; the poster and several commenters suspect financial motives.
  • Whether the other 16 people were also on probation, and any notice pay or terms.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: reported. The poster says the employer told 17 staff at a Teams meeting that their roles were redundant because of AI. This is a reported institutional response to AI adoption: the poster's account of the employer's stated reason is the only evidence, no AI output or action toward the poster is described, no tool is named, and no employer statement was retrieved. The poster's own replies say the stated reason may not be the real one.

4 claims: 4 reported. What the statuses mean

Reported The poster says they joined a product company as an associate full-stack developer at the start of the year and were on a probation period due to end in November.

Causal attribution. Poster's account.

  • reddit.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'Got placed at a product-based company as an Associate Full stack Developer'; 'at the start of this year'; 'Had a probation period which was supposed to end in November'
Reported The poster says that at a Microsoft Teams meeting the employer told 17 staff, including the poster, that their roles were redundant because of AI and that they were no longer needed.

Causal attribution. The poster attributes the AI reason to the employer; no employer statement was retrieved and no AI tool or use is described.

  • reddit.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'Out of nowhere I get a MS Teams meeting invitation'; 'they let 17 of us know that our roles are redundant because of AI and we are no longer needed'
Reported The poster says the dismissal came without warning while they were writing their probation report and that they feel upset, demotivated and frustrated.

Causal attribution. Poster's account of their own reaction.

  • reddit.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'I literally was working on my probation report which I was supposed to submit on the 23rd'; 'I'm upset, demotivated and frustrated that stuff like this happens out of the blue'
Reported In replies the poster agrees with a commenter who suggests the company used AI as a cover for financial problems, and writes that the reasons given for sackings are not usually the real ones.

Causal attribution. Records the poster's own doubt about the stated reason; it does not establish the employer's actual motive.

  • reddit.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'Yeah I do have a feeling it is this. Regardless it sucks to be at the end of the axe'; 'The reasons they give for the sackings isn't usually what it is'

Sources

1 source inspected. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Read in English on 2026-10-18: the post and 70 comments through the arctic_shift archive API by post ID and link ID, and the live thread (73 entries, 12 by the poster, latest poster reply at 17:18 UTC on 17 October 2026) through Reddit's comment RSS feed at about 02:57 UTC on 18 October. The live post wording differs slightly from the archived copy; the live text is quoted. The poster's handle is not recorded. Applies to s1.

Event countries: Unknown. Affected-person countries: Unknown. Court countries: Unknown.

The post does not say where the poster or employer is. The poster says only that they are not in the US; the subreddit, vocabulary and commenters' guesses are not evidence of location.

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-18: Published under the public-forum rule as a concrete first-person account of a group redundancy that the poster says the employer attributed to AI, reviewed as a consequential institutional response to AI adoption. Described with attribution and without corroboration, including the poster's own doubt about the stated reason; the employer is not identified and the poster's handle is not recorded.

People described

The poster, a junior full-stack developer on probation, and 16 other staff the poster says were told the same in the meeting

People reported harmed in this case

17 people

0 AI participants · 17 other people harmed

17 people: the poster writes that the meeting told '17 of us' that their roles were redundant, which includes the poster. The figure is the poster's alone. None of them is counted as a direct AI user: the harm is the employer's decision.

Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.

Tags

#first-person#reddit#employment#redundancy#workplace-ai#consequential-response

Cite this case

Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.

APA

NOPE. (2026). Junior developer says their employer told 17 staff in one video meeting that their roles were redundant because of AI (first-person account). AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2026-junior-developer-says-employer-told-17-staff-their-roles-were-redundant-because-of-ai-first-person

BibTeX

@misc{2026_junior_developer_says_employer_told_17_staff_their_roles_were_redundant_because_of_ai_first_person,
  title = {Junior developer says their employer told 17 staff in one video meeting that their roles were redundant because of AI (first-person account)},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2026-junior-developer-says-employer-told-17-staff-their-roles-were-redundant-because-of-ai-first-person}
}

Related cases

Low Claude (reported)

Freelance web designer says a longtime client cancelled a commissioned clinic website by text, saying Claude had built the whole site (first-person)

In a public post to r/antiai created on 7 October 2026, a person who describes years of graphic design and website work for one client writes that the client had asked them to build a separate website for a new clinic and had sent over the material, and that on the day of the post the client texted to say not to bother because Claude had built the entire website, asking the poster to review it instead. The poster says the same client had earlier moved its graphic design to AI-generated material that copied the poster's design direction, leaving them only the website work, and that they feel sick over the cancellation. In a reply the poster says they will probably take a part-time job as a backup while keeping their remaining clients. The client is not named and did not respond; the account is the poster's alone and uncorroborated.

Low Meta AI support assistant (reported)

Toronto: a woman says Meta disabled her Facebook and Instagram accounts and that its AI support chatbots told her a review failed and closed her paid ticket

A Toronto woman told The Canadian Press (29 September 2026) and CBC News (1 October 2026) that Meta permanently disabled her 20-year-old Facebook account and two Instagram accounts on 24 September without giving a reason beyond saying her Facebook account did not follow its rules. She says she could reach only Meta's AI support chatbots. One told her the review she requested was unsuccessful; she told CBC that within minutes of pressing the appeal button she was told her case was closed and she could not appeal again. She then paid for the standard Meta Verified subscription expecting human support, and its support chatbot closed her ticket and told her she had reached her limit of support interactions. She describes losing 20 years of memories and contacts as isolating and says she has lost client opportunities for her side business. She suspects an attempted hack. Meta did not comment on her case to either outlet, and no restoration is reported.

Medium ChatGPT

Saginaw, Michigan: a credit union CEO used ChatGPT to put herself and family members in 'Lake America' sweatshirts in a photo taken before a trip to Halifax; after her sister reposted it publicly without its AI label she says she received death threats and the family came home early, and on 23 September 2026 the credit union said she was no longer employed

The chief executive of Family First Credit Union in Saginaw, Michigan, told WJRT (ABC12) that before boarding a flight to Halifax, Nova Scotia, on 11 September 2026 she and family members took a photo and put it through ChatGPT to show them wearing 'Lake America' sweatshirts, a joke about the US president's order renaming Lake Ontario. She posted it to her private Facebook page with a marker saying it contained AI content; her sister reposted it publicly without the marker while they were in Halifax, and it spread in Canada as if the family had worn the shirts. The backlash concerned the image's political message; she said she would understand the anger of anyone in Halifax who thought the family had walked in wearing those sweatshirts. She said she was getting death threats and the family returned early; by 16 September she was back in the US. She called the post poor judgment, said she would not use AI again and that AI 'can make people think something's real that's not'. On 23 September the credit union said she was no longer an employee, effective immediately; it has not said whether she resigned or was dismissed, or why.

Medium Sentinel AI (reported)

Lawsuit says a New Jersey employer dismissed a remote worker who sought exemption from AI facial-recognition webcam monitoring

NorthJersey.com reported on 5 October 2026 that a former remote employee of Sutherland Healthcare Solutions, based in Clifton, New Jersey, sued the company in New Jersey Superior Court in Atlantic City on 23 September 2026. According to the complaint as reported, the employer told the employee it would start monitoring her through her work laptop's webcam with software called Sentinel AI, which would use AI and facial recognition to confirm that she was the person at the desk, taking 160 still images in an eight-hour shift. The employee raised concerns in writing about the AI seeing inside her home and about whether the data would be securely stored, said the monitoring had increased her anxiety and stress and worsened a medical condition, and asked for a full or partial exemption as a reasonable accommodation. The suit says the request was denied, she was given a 24-hour ultimatum on 13 August 2026 to submit to the monitoring or resign, an offer to avoid the software by commuting to the office was rejected because it would require six hours of travel time, and her employment was terminated on 8 September 2026. The suit alleges that the employer violated New Jersey's anti-discrimination laws and retaliated against her for requesting reasonable accommodations. Sutherland did not respond to the outlet's requests for comment, and the allegations have not been tested in court.

If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.

Back to all incidents