Only 75 out of 287,000 layoffs this year attributed to AI replacement, yet further down, IBM alone has replaced "hundreds" of HR employees with AI. Which is it?

Absolute trash article. Any vague gesture in the direction of a fact is poorly defined with no sources. This should only increase skepticism towards AI replacing writers and journalists.

Capital Economics analysts warned that some firms use AI as cover for cuts driven by poor financial performance. “For some firms, AI is a way to spin job losses driven by poor financial performance in a more positive light,” they wrote.

The AI job apocalypse narrative serves multiple purposes: it justifies hiring freezes, explains away poor financial performance, and creates urgency around AI adoption.

I suspected as much too: that the people in-charge are using AI as a scapegoat so that the anger that would have been directed at them gets turned towards AI instead.

Given that there's a vocal minority of Lemmings who blindly hate AI, I'd say their propaganda has definitely found at least some success.

yet further down, IBM alone has replaced "hundreds" of HR employees with AI. Which is it?

The article is implying that claims like these are bogus, no?

AI is changing how work gets done, but not eliminating entire roles. At IBM, “a couple hundred” HR workers were replaced by AI agents, CEO Arvind Krishna told The Wall Street Journal in May.

While we have done a huge amount of work inside IBM on leveraging AI and automationon certain enterprise workflows, our total employment has actually gone up, because what it does is it gives you more investment to put into other areas,” Krishna said.

The company used AI savings to hire more programmers and salespeople.

so they did fire a couple hundred HR people, but claim that allowed them to hire more people in other areas. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯