A Spring 2026 report based on a survey of 502 Canadian job seekers found that many worry growing workplace use of AI could encourage overdependence on technology, weaken creativity and problem-solving, and reduce entry-level chances to gain experience. The findings measure respondents’ concerns—not proof that AI has already eroded workers’ skills.
What the survey found
Express Employment Professionals’ AI and the Lasting Value of Human Judgment report, based on a survey conducted by The Harris Poll, asked Canadian job seekers about workplace AI. The report lists the following concerns:
| Concern | Share of surveyed job seekers |
|---|---|
| Overdependence on technology | 49% |
| Declining employee creativity | 49% |
| Employees losing problem-solving skills | 42% |
| Fewer entry-level opportunities to gain initial experience | 40% |
These percentages describe reported worries, not observed changes in skill levels or hiring. For example, the 42% figure does not show that employees have lost problem-solving ability; it records concern that they might.
What the study can—and cannot—tell us
The Harris Poll surveyed 502 Canadian adults online from November 7 to 21, 2025. Participants were employed and looking for a new job, or not employed and looking for work. The report says results were weighted on listed demographic variables, but its complete weighting details and subgroup sample sizes are available by contacting Express rather than in the report itself. Read the Spring 2026 report.
#1 Best Overall
That scope matters: the results represent surveyed job seekers’ views, not a representative poll of all employees or employers. The questions capture perceptions and intentions, so they cannot establish that AI causes skill loss or fewer jobs. They also do not show how workers’ skills change over time.
Job concerns and reported interest in training
The report presents a mixed picture of how job seekers are responding to AI developments. Forty percent say they are likely to seek more training. Separately, 66% believe learning job skills using AI is appropriate, while 52% consider self-taught skills from informal online platforms credible. Thirty-one percent say they have taught themselves skills through such platforms and include them on their résumé.
Rank #2
Those figures describe interest, beliefs and reported experience—not the effectiveness of AI-assisted learning or the quality of skills acquired. For workers deciding what to learn, the survey is evidence that some job seekers are thinking about training, not a recommendation to rely on any one learning method.
Employment worries are not the same as reported job cuts
Forty-two percent of job seekers fear companies will not need to hire as much because of AI. A different figure applies to a narrower group: among employed job seekers whose company uses AI, 36% worry that using it could reduce their company’s workforce. Both numbers measure concern; neither is a count of jobs actually eliminated.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteRank #3
Separate employer-side evidence offers context but is not directly comparable. In the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas’s May 2025 Texas Business Outlook Surveys, among responding Texas firms that used or planned to use generative AI, 62.2% said it did not or would not affect their need for workers; 17.6% said it changed the type of workers needed but not the number; and 8.1% said it decreased their need for workers. These results come from Texas businesses, not Canadian job seekers, and reflect a different survey and respondent group. The combined skill-level table had 39 responses, with small individual subgroups. See the Dallas Fed’s May 2025 survey results.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Where respondents value human judgment
The Express report says job seekers emphasize human decision-making, communication and empathy. It identifies crisis or emergency management, employee disputes or grievances, performance reviews and feedback, and ethical-practice or compliance decisions as areas where respondents value human involvement.
That is a description of respondents’ views, not evidence that AI cannot assist with these tasks. The report’s broader point is that people may distinguish themselves by combining AI skills with interpersonal abilities; it does not establish that this combination guarantees a job or replaces role-specific expertise.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
