用“客户偏好”掩盖的结构性剥削Structural Exploitation Masked as 'Customer Preference'
Centrica 的 CEO Chris O’Shea 玩了一套典型的 weaponization 技巧：他试图将 1,300 个岗位的消失定义为“客户偏好”的结果，而非公司决策的结果。在他的叙事里，AI 只是一个被动的工具，而裁员是由于客户“自愿”转向数字渠道。这是一个极其恶劣的 scam。当一个 FTSE 100 公司的权力中心决定通过“定向部署 AI”来削减成本时，所谓的“客户偏好”不过是结果，而非原因。公司通过设计界面、增加电话接通难度、强推 chatbot 引导，人为制造了“客户倾向于数字渠道”的假象，然后反过来用这个假象为裁员正名。
这不仅是简单的商业策略，而是一场典型的结构层暴力 (structural violence)。在 Potential（AI 提升效率，减轻人类工作强度）与 Actual（AI 被用来直接替代人力以榨取更高利润）的差额中，1,300 个家庭的生计被抹除，而 Centrica 的零售部门利润却在上升。这种利润的增长并非来自服务质量的提升，而是来自对人力成本的暴力削减和对固定价格关税的精准收割。
最讽刺的共谋在于，这种叙事试图让被裁掉的员工和被敷衍的客户相信，他们是被时代的“进化”所抛弃，而非被一个具体的利润计算器所抛弃。当 CEO 宣称“AI 并没有驱动这些岗位减少”时，他是在试图切断权力与后果之间的逻辑链条，将一种结构性的掠夺包装成一种自然的演进。在这种叙事中，人的主体性再次被客体化为一组“行为数据”，而真正的权力——决定谁能留在电话线另一端的人——则隐身在“市场规律”的掩体之后。
Centrica CEO Chris O’Shea is employing a classic weaponization of expression: attempting to define the loss of 1,300 jobs as a result of 'customer preference' rather than corporate decision. In his narrative, AI is a passive tool, and layoffs are merely a response to customers 'voluntarily' shifting to digital channels. This is a blatant scam. When the power center of a FTSE 100 company decides to slash costs via 'targeted deployment of AI,' the so-called 'customer preference' is the manufactured outcome, not the cause. By designing interfaces that obstruct human contact and force-feeding chatbots, the company creates the illusion of digital preference, then uses that illusion to legitimize redundancies.
This is not just a business strategy; it is a clear manifestation of structural violence. In the gap between the Potential (AI reducing human toil) and the Actual (AI being used to replace humans for higher margins), the livelihoods of 1,300 families are erased while Centrica's retail profits climb. This profit growth doesn't stem from improved service, but from the violent reduction of labor costs and the predatory extraction of fixed-price tariffs.
The most cynical complicity lies in how this narrative convinces displaced workers and frustrated customers that they are victims of 'evolution' rather than a specific profit calculator. When O’Shea claims 'AI isn’t driving these particular job reductions,' he is attempting to sever the logical link between power and consequence, packaging structural plunder as natural progression. Here, human subjectivity is once again objectified into 'behavioral data,' while the actual power—the one deciding who remains on the other end of the line—remains hidden behind the shield of 'market forces.'