Companies Cut AI Spending Due to Rising Operational Costs

Despite the undeniable influence of artificial intelligence (AI) on modern society, there remains a sharp debate over whether its overall impact is positive or negative. Just a year or two ago, the internet was flooded with AI-generated images that quickly entered corporate advertising. Soon after, social media platforms like YouTube were filled with AI-generated thumbnails—visuals that initially attracted viewer interest but now increasingly cause audience fatigue and skepticism.

However, outside of consumer social media feeds, artificial intelligence holds significant potential to transform corporate operations, provided it is implemented strategically. In an exclusive interview with IOL, Paul Banting, co-founder of growthguru.ai, analyzed the common narrative that AI has become an overrated tool that does not deliver expected productivity growth.

Banting stated that the problem is not that AI is overrated, but that it is being judged against the wrong promise. He emphasized that productivity gains are real and supported by research. According to a McKinsey survey on AI adoption in corporations, 80% of respondents noted improved individual productivity, yet only 37% claimed that AI directly contributed to increased profit for their organization—a metric that has remained virtually unchanged over the past year.

Therefore, in Banting's view, it is more accurate to say that AI is not overrated, but fundamentally misunderstood. Leaders mistakenly assume that saved time automatically translates into revenue growth. In reality, companies must actively direct the hours freed up by AI toward achieving tangible, high-return commercial opportunities.

While most public attention naturally focuses on optimizing outdated workflows, Banting warns that task efficiency should not become the primary goal of the enterprise. Around 79% of executives expect AI to drive substantial revenue growth by 2030, compared to 40% today. Nevertheless, only 24% have a clear idea of where this future revenue will originate. The true objective, Banting explained, is using AI to identify urgent commercial gaps and capture high-value market opportunities ahead of competitors.

The Growthguru.ai platform was developed precisely to bridge this strategic gap, focusing on business development rather than general workflow automation. Instead of offering a single universal assistant, their platform utilizes specialized AI agents targeting specific commercial levers: Perky helps partners access relevant incentives, discounts, and co-financing from suppliers; Maya develops go-to-market strategies and co-marketing initiatives; Alex guides partners through certifications and supplier tiers; and Lexi tracks important enterprise updates, such as critical Microsoft platform releases.

Nevertheless, alongside the commercial potential lies a darker side—AI-enabled crime, where issues of accountability and legal liability remain unresolved. Banting argues that criminals using AI for financial fraud must be held responsible for their actions, regardless of the tools they employ. However, if proprietary or third-party enterprise AI causes operational or financial damage, the responsibility lies directly with the business that implemented it. Legal liability cannot simply be shifted to the model provider. While software developers must create secure and compliant architectures, the choice of implementation rests entirely with the enterprise. BCG confirmed this finding in its applied AI benchmark.

Amid the growing use of automation, many large companies are investing in artificial intelligence and conducting staff reductions. Nevertheless, the company Anthropic is ready to offer 32.5 million rupees for text-writing related work. This is surprising because what a person does in an hour, AI can do in mere seconds.

Artificial intelligence can write an email in a few seconds or create a blog draft in minutes, helping companies produce content on a scale that previously required an entire team. Because of this, many authors are questioning the value of their work if machines start writing.

Despite the emergence of AI, Anthropic has opened a special vacancy. For this position, the company offers an annual salary ranging from $295,000 to $345,000 USD, which is equivalent to approximately 2.5 to 3.25 crore rupees. However, this position is not intended for ordinary writers. The candidate must have at least eight years of experience in executive communication, working with senior management.

A natural question arises: why would Anthropic pay such money if AI can perform the job? The answer lies in the fact that the employee in this position will work directly with the company's top management. They will be responsible for preparing messages to convey the company's position to the public at important moments and explaining complex issues in simple terms. This requires not only good writing skills but also the ability to think strategically and provide balanced answers when necessary.

This job goes beyond simply writing articles for websites or product descriptions. It requires a specialist capable of deeply analyzing problems, predicting the impact of a message on the audience, and helping leaders decide what and how to communicate.

Anthropic is not the only AI company offering high salaries to writing and communications specialists. In September 2025, OpenAI also announced a vacancy related to content strategy, with an annual package of around $400,000. The employee in this role was tasked with improving the brand awareness of ChatGPT, creating content, and collaborating with engineers and designers.

However, this does not mean that salaries in the writing field are rising everywhere. It only indicates that some AI companies value experienced specialists who possess strategic planning skills, an understanding of people's needs, and the ability to simplify complex topics, in addition to good writing.

There is another side to the coin. In June 2023, one content writer reported that after the appearance of ChatGPT, some of his clients stopped commissioning him work. He specialized in writing content for websites and product descriptions, which can now be quickly created using AI tools, intensifying pressure on such tasks.

Thus, on one hand, experienced communications specialists are offered high-paying positions, while on the other hand, some freelancers involved in general content find it harder to find work. However, this does not mean that all entry-level writing positions are disappearing or that any senior author's job is guaranteed protection. The influence of AI depends on the type of work performed and the client's willingness to pay for it.

The author's task is not only to create content but also to verify the accuracy of information, identify missing details, and assess the material's suitability for readers. A report for September 2025 mentioned work related to correcting errors and improving AI-generated content.

This shows that humans may still be needed to check and refine AI-generated drafts. However, it cannot be assumed that the professions of editor and fact-checker are completely safe, as AI tools can assist in these tasks as well. Consequently, it becomes critically important for authors not only to write drafts but also to find errors, confirm information, and add necessary context.

The Anthropic vacancy is not suitable for all authors, as it is a high-level position requiring many years of experience. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that everyone can earn such a salary in the writing field. For those aiming to build a career in journalism, copywriting, or corporate communications, not only good writing skills but also research abilities, fact-checking, subject matter understanding, and critical thinking are important. Mastering the proper use of AI tools may also prove useful.

Authors who can use AI to speed up their work while simultaneously verifying information, performing quality editing, and applying their own original thinking will be able to adapt to the changing work environment.

Job applicants spend time improving their resumes, tailoring cover letters to job requirements, and matching their skills with company needs. After submitting documents, there is often a period of silence, after which they may try again or use artificial intelligence to enhance their application.

On the other hand, recruiters can use AI to analyze hundreds of resumes. Since candidates strive to stand out, and companies want to quickly find a suitable person, the use of the same technology is growing both in the application process and in hiring, turning this procedure into a machine versus machine competition.

AI is capable of simplifying the job search for applicants by helping write resumes, prepare applications, and practice for interviews. However, a rapid increase in the number of prepared applications does not guarantee an increase in their quality.

According to a September 2025 report, one applicant sent 87 applications in a month using AI. Errors were found in these documents, such as incorrect company and job titles. The report warns that AI-generated materials without verification can harm candidates.

When applicants apply for numerous vacancies, the volume of incoming applications for companies increases. Although automated screening seems useful for companies, the question arises as to which candidate will be paid attention to in this process.

Monitoring systems allow companies to organize resumes and find candidates whose experience matches the job requirements. Nevertheless, if the candidate's necessary competencies are described in words that the system does not recognize, they may be ignored.

A October 2025 report details how monitoring system tools match resumes with job requirements. The risk is not limited to missing keywords.

In May 2024, concern was raised that qualified candidates might be rejected by automated hiring systems, with the report emphasizing the need for human oversight.

If the rejection decision is made solely by software, a suitable candidate will never reach the recruiter, and the applicant will not know the reason for rejection.

This pressure is not limited to India. A BBC report mentioned a 22-year-old geography graduate from Medstone, UK. Before getting a restaurant manager position, he submitted over 200 applications. He noted that AI helped in processing applications, but the entire process was exhausting.

Business Insider reported that Google integrated AI tools, including Gemini, into some software development interviews. During these interviews, candidates' ability to understand code and work with AI was tested.

These examples show that applicants are using AI for job searching, while companies expect them to demonstrate AI-related skills. This raises the question: will the technology make the hiring process more efficient or add another level of competition?

Even after submitting an application, applicants may wait without knowing whether their application is being considered. According to a September 2026 report based on the Indeed hiring confidence index, 29% of Indian applicants reported that lack of response after applying is their biggest problem.

The study involved 1073 applicants and 735 employers from India. Simply speeding up screening will not solve this problem; candidates also need clear information and the ability to track the status of their application during the hiring process.

The task for applicants is not to send template applications when using AI and not to claim non-existent skills. The task for companies is not to consider recommendations from fully automated technologies as the final solution.

AI can help candidates better present their experience, and recruiters can manage workload. However, an attractive resume and quick screening do not guarantee that a suitable candidate matches the right job.

For a person waiting for a response after applying, the most useful change will not be a new tool to speed up applications, but a more transparent and impartial hiring process that can identify the person behind the resume.