Cold Comfort

This Economist article is cold comfort given the variety of flaws in its arguments. It argues that, despite widespread fears, artificial intelligence has not led to mass unemployment or significant job loss. The piece points to strong labor markets, stable or rising wages, and the limited current capabilities of AI as evidence that the technology is not replacing workers at scale. It also notes that organizational and technical barriers have slowed the adoption of AI in ways that would dramatically reshape the workforce.

There are several problems with this thesis. First, it relies heavily on short-term employment data, which may lag behind the true impact of technological change and can mask sector-specific or demographic disruptions. The article also underestimates the indirect effects of AI, such as the erosion of entry-level opportunities, the deskilling of certain roles, and the potential for wage stagnation as AI tools commoditize expertise. By focusing on what AI cannot do today, the analysis risks overlooking the rapid pace of improvement in generative AI and the possibility that more complex tasks will soon become automatable.

More broadly, the article’s perspective is limited by its focus on aggregate economic indicators and the US context, missing global shifts and subtle changes in job quality or social mobility. While AI may not have caused mass layoffs yet, its effects on the nature of work, career progression, and wage structures could be profound and gradual. In sum, the article’s reassuring message may underestimate the complexity and long-term risks posed by AI to the workforce. It the author was trying to assure those of us who are still in the workforce and wondering what cataclysmic change will impact or jobs, then it fell way short.