Over 160 companies in New York state have filed notices of mass layoffs since last March. None—in a group that includes Amazon, Goldman Sachs, and other employers that are adopting AI tools—attributed their workforce cuts in those filings to “technological innovation or automation.”

That option was added 11 months ago to a required question on paperwork that businesses with 50 or more employees must file with the state to notify of sizable job losses. New York’s Department of Labor told WIRED that, as of the end of January, no employer had marked tech as the reason for their workforce reduction.

Over the past couple of years, many companies have celebrated offloading repetitive tasks such as customer service, sales, and accounting to AI systems. But saying that they are dumping human workers in favor of AI agents or robots can risk reputational harm. And economists face challenges tracing layoffs to tech advancements because companies can take decades to fully reorganize around new ways of working.

Enter New York governor Kathy Hochul. To get a better handle on the current reality, she ordered the Department of Labor to begin asking whether AI had been the impetus for layoffs. New York became the first state with an AI option, according to legal experts.

New York businesses can select multiple reasons among a list of 17 in total that also includes “bankruptcy,” “merger,” “relocation,” and “other,” on required Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification, or WARN, filings. If any company were to select the tech and automation option, they would receive an additional question asking them to specify the technology taking over work, such as AI, robotics, or “software modernization.”

Over 750 notices spanning 162 employers and affecting nearly 28,300 workers have followed the rollout without AI coming up. The results suggest that companies may be dodging the AI question. Or it’s a sign that workers need not yet fear anything more than the traditional drivers of layoffs.

Some of the filers include caterers and retailers whose staff haven’t widely been linked to capable AI replacements. On the other hand, Goldman Sachs led the way with more than 4,100 workers affected by layoffs or location closures, according to New York records. Amazon was among the top 10 with 660 affected workers. Morgan Stanley, another AI adopter, reported 260 workers out of job.

Internally, Goldman Sachs linked its layoffs last year to AI’s potential to unlock significant productivity gains. Amazon warned ahead of its latest waves of layoffs, which affected about 30,000 workers in total, that benefits from AI would lead to job cuts. An unnamed source told Bloomberg that a small portion of Morgan Stanley’s layoffs reflected AI and automation use. The companies operate around the world, so it’s possible that only employees outside of New York were pushed out in favor of AI.

Overall, nearly 55,000 US companies attributed job cuts to adoption of AI last year, according to an analysis of public statements by the job search firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas.

Still, none of these developments showing up in the unique New York data reinforces the challenge with answering the question on everyone’s mind: “Is AI going to take my job?”

Amazon spokesperson Kelly Nantel says, “AI is not the reason behind the vast majority” of cuts and that instead the goal is “reducing layers, increasing ownership, and helping reduce bureaucracy.”

Goldman Sachs declined to comment. Morgan Stanley didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Accuracy Checks

WARN filings are intended to give state agencies advance notice of cuts, so that they can ramp up services to help people quickly find new jobs. Companies face $500 daily fines for noncompliance with filing requirements.

Kristin Devoe, a spokesperson for the governor, says the Department of Labor follows up with every employer to ensure the accuracy of filings. In the case of Amazon, for example, the company listed “economic” as the rationale for layoffs, according to Devoe. It explained to the department that employees hired during the pandemic to meet then-surges in online shopping were no longer needed.

“The data collected through WARN notices, including the reason for layoff, serves as a valuable indicator of shifts in the labor market,” Devoe says. “Gathering these early indicators allows the state to identify workforce trends and upskill workers who may need retraining to make their skills more compatible with today’s changing economy.”

She added that it is crucial for employers to answer “questions in WARN frankly and honestly so New York State can support displaced workers to the greatest extent possible.”

One of the country’s largest union groups, the New York State AFL-CIO, applauds Hochul for trying to capture data on AI-related layoffs. It suggests that additional rules and greater focus on the issue could help bring about meaningful information. “We must establish specific regulations that mandate employer accountability and transparency in AI deployment and ensure employers comply,” says Mario Cilento, the federation’s president.

Last month, state lawmaker Harry Bronson, who chairs the Assembly Labor Committee, introduced two bills that could expand reporting of AI-fueled job loss. One would require businesses with more than 100 employees to file annual estimates with the state on the number of unfilled roles as a result of increasing use of AI, and how many employees worked more or less hours because of AI.

The other bill would resemble WARN procedures but apply to a wider set of businesses handing over jobs to computers. Notably, failure to report could impair a company’s ability to get state grants and tax breaks—a new prod to gather data.

Erica Groshen, a labor economist at Cornell University, which is in New York, says employers will struggle with answering questions about the consequences of new tech. A better requirement, she says, would be for companies to share detailed data with labor agencies on the evolution of skills and occupations.

“Frankly, do we really care if someone is displaced by AI, or just the normal competitive marketplace?” Groshen says. What lawmakers ought to do is “give people the information they need to make the right transitions.”