AI may work out better for jobs than labour doomsayers argue

Automation enabled by AI could actually enhance employment but we must guard against concentrations of market power

- PHILIPPE AGHION & SIMON BUNEL

As more businesses begin to experiment with Al and consider how it might improve their profitability, debates about the implications for workers have intensified. In the US, the apparent disconnect between soaring stock-market valuations and falling total (non-farm) job openings has fuelled media narratives about tech-driven job destruction.

Hardly a week goes by without new headlines about companies using AI to perform white-collar jobs, especially those typically filled by new graduates and those lower down the career ladder. According to a report issued by the US Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions earlier this month, Al and automation could destroy nearly 100 million US jobs over the coming decade. Those voicing such fears can even point to prominent economists who argue that the Al revolution will have only moderate effects on productivity growth, but unambiguously negative effects on employment, owing to the automation of many tasks and jobs.

We disagree on both counts. Our own recent work shows that the situation is far more complicated, and not nearly as dire, as these pessimistic narratives suggest. When it comes to productivity growth, Alcan operate through two distinct channels: automating tasks in the production of goods and services, and automating tasks in the production of new ideas.

When Erik Brynjolfsson and his coauthors examined the impact of Generative Al (GenAl) on customer-service agents at a US software firm, they found that productivity among workers with access to an Al assistant increased by almost 14% in the first month of use, then stabilized at a level approximately 25% higher after three months.