AI drives productivity gains and job growth, but worker resistance reveals deepening AI job panic

Industries most exposed to AI are not only seeing productivity gains but jobs and wage growth too

Forecasts of the impact of artificial intelligence range from the apocalyptic to the utopian. An October 2025 report from Senate Democrats, for example, predicted AI will destroy millions of U.S. jobs. A couple of years earlier, consultant company McKinsey forecast AI will add trillions to the global economy, while emphasizing job losses can be mitigated by training workers to do new things. The problem is that many of these claims are based on projections, overly simplified surveys or thought experiments rather than observed changes in the economy. That makes it hard for the public, and often policymakers, to know what to trust. As a labor economist who studies how technology and organizational change affect productivity and well-being, I believe a better place to start is with actual data on output, employment and wages - which are all looking relatively more hopeful. AI and jobs In one of my new research papers with economist Andrew Johnston, we studied how exposure to generative AI affected industries across America between 2017 and 2024, using administrative data that covers nearly all employers. Our analysis covered a crucial period when generative AI use exploded, allowing us to analyze the effect within businesses and industries. We measured AI exposure using occupation-level task data matched to each industry and state's occupational workforce mix prior to the pandemic. A state and industry with more workers in roles requiring language processing, coding or data tasks scored higher on exposure, for example, compared with one with more plumbers and electricians. We then took that exposure ranking by occupation and looked at changes in the standard deviation in occupational exposure, comparing that with labor market and GDP across states and industries from 2017 to 2024. Think of a standard deviation as roughly the gap between a paramedic - whose work centers on physical assessment, emergency response and hands-on care that AI cannot easily replicate - and a public relations manager, whose work involves drafting communications, analyzing sentiment and synthesizing information that AI tools handle well. That gap in AI exposure is roughly what we're measuring when we ask: Does being on the higher-exposure side of that divide change your industry's trajectory? This data allowed us to answer two questions: When AI tools became widely available following the public release of ChatGPT in late 2022, did states and industries that were more exposed to generative AI become more productive, and what happened to workers? Our answers are more encouraging, and more nuanced, than much of the public debate suggests. We found that industries in states that were more exposed to AI experienced faster productivity growth beginning in 2021 - before ChatGPT reached the public - driven by enterprise tools already embedded in professional workflows, including GitHub Copilot for software development, Jasper for marketing and content writing, and Microsoft's GPT-3-powered business applications. In 2024, for example, industries whose AI exposure was one standard deviation higher saw gains of 10% in productivity, 3.9% in jobs and 4.8% in wages than comparable industries in the same state. Those patterns suggest that, at least so far, AI has acted as a productivity-enhancing tool that boosts employment and wages rather than a simple substitute for labor. Augmentation versus displacement A crucial distinction in the data is between tasks where AI works with people and tasks where AI can act more independently. In sectors where AI mainly complements workers - think marketing, writing or financial analysis - our data show that employment rose by about 3.6% per standard deviation increase in exposure. In sectors where AI can execute tasks more autonomously - including basic data processing, generating boilerplate code, or handling standardized customer interactions - we found no significant employment change, though workers in those roles saw slower wage growth. What these findings suggest is that when AI lowers the cost of completing a task and raises worker productivity, companies expand output enough to increase their demand for labor overall -- the same logic that explains why power tools didn't eliminate construction workers. The economic question is not whether any given task disappears. It is whether businesses and workers can reorganize fast enough to create new productive combinations. And so far, in most sectors, our evidence suggests they can. But state policies also matter: These benefits were concentrated in the states with more efficient labor markets, meaning that the impact of generative AI on workers and the economy also depends on the types of policies and institutions of the local economy. Importantly, these findings hold beyond occupational exposure. In additional work with co-authors at the Bureau of Economic Analysis, we found a similar effect on GDP and employment when looking at actual AI utilization -- that is how often workers use AI. Drawing on the Gallup Workforce Panel, we measured workers actively using AI daily or multiple times a week. We found that each percentage-point increase in the share of frequent AI users in a state and industry is associated with roughly 0.1% to 0.2% higher real output and 0.2% to 0.4% higher employment. To put that in context: The share of frequent AI users across all occupations rose from about 12% in mid-2024 to 26% by late 2025, a shift our estimates suggest corresponds to roughly 1.4% to 2.8% higher real output - or about 1 to 2 percentage points of annualized growth over that period. New technologies rarely leave work untouched. But they also rarely eliminate the need for human contribution altogether. Instead, they change the composition of work, as our research shows. Some tasks shrink. Others expand. New ones emerge that were previously too costly or too hard to perform at scale. Put simply, some occupations might go away, but most of them just change. If anything, the trends documented here are likely to strengthen rather than fade. Not only are generative AI tools rapidly improving, but also the experimentation and research and development that many workers and companies are engaging in are likely to pay large dividends. These investments - often referred to as intangible capital - tend to get unlocked a few years after a technology comes onto the scene, once complementary investments have been made. The role of companies and managers Whether AI leads to anxiety or adaptation for workers depends in part on what happens inside organizations. Using additional data collected over many years in the Gallup Workforce Panel covering more than 30,000 U.S. employees from 2023 to 2026, I found in a 2026 paper that workplace adoption of generative AI rose quickly over the period, with the share of workers using AI often increasing from 9% to 26%. But the more important finding is that adoption was far more common where workers believed their organization had communicated a clear AI strategy and where employees said they trust leadership. This suggests that growing adoption and effective use of AI depends not only on the availability of the technology but on whether managers make its use clear, credible and safe. Where that clarity exists, frequent AI use is associated with higher engagement and job satisfaction, and it even reverses the burnout penalties that appear elsewhere. In other words, the broader economic effects of AI depend not only on how sophisticated the tools are but on whether companies and managers create environments where workers can experiment, reorganize tasks and integrate new tools into productive routines. That is, if employees do not feel the psychological safety to experiment, they are less likely to use AI, and they are especially less likely to use it for higher-value work. That is precisely the kind of adaptation that I believe makes labor markets more resilient than the most alarmist forecasts suggest.

CEOs are betting AI will augment work rather than displace all workers

Jack Clark, co-founder of Anthropic, at the Semafor World Economy Summit during the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank Spring meetings in Washington, DC, US, on Monday, April 13, 2026. The effect artificial intelligence will have on the labor market has left workers and job seekers alike worried about their future. Top executives, however, are optimistic that the technology can continue to augment workloads rather than entirely displace human employees. The debate over the future of work even extends inside the corridors of a major AI provider. Speaking Monday at the Semafor World Economy conference in Washington, D.C., Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark dismissed Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei's argument that AI could drive the unemployment rate as high as 20% in the next five years. Clark has previously said that accepting such high joblessness is almost a policy "choice," given that any potential collapse in the job market would take time to play out and is a challenge that can be met by society. "I think that the aspect of this, which is a choice is, if we're correct, this technology really is going to change the world in a vast way," Clark said on stage at the conference. "It will change how business is done, ... aspects of national security, how we even relate to one another as people. And it's impossible to reconcile that with a world where the economy doesn't change in substantial ways as well." Anthropic has been at the center of AI disruption fears in the stock market, resulting in a bloodbath for software companies, which investors suddenly see as vulnerable to technological obsolescence in a world moving toward agentic systems that take actions with minimal human oversight. The iShares Expanded Tech-Software Sector ETF (IGV) is in a bear market, after plunging more than 30% from its high last September. Those changes will force a reworking in how employees meet the labor market, with Clark noting that he sees some weakness in early graduate employment in some industries. Clark leads The Anthropic Institute, a 30-person think tank studying AI's effects on the workplace. Clark said college students entering the job market today have to understand how to analyze and connect information across many disparate disciplines. He is less enthusiastic about students building what he called rote programming skills. "What AI allows us to do is it allows you to have access to sort of an arbitrary amount of subject matter experts in different domains," Clark said. "But the really important thing is knowing the right questions to ask and having intuitions about what would be interesting if you collided different insights from many different disciplines." Here is how some of the other Semafor panelists are thinking through the implications of AI in business: Jon Clifton, CEO of Gallup, said the countries most likely to have an edge in the future are the ones with a larger portion of the workforce using AI. "We can see that 50% of all of American employees are using AI. But one of the challenges was ... are you seeing the productivity gains? It's not being used a lot. So interestingly enough, only 13% of employees are actually using it on a daily basis," he said. Daniel Herscovici, president and CEO of Plume, outlined the importance of having a dedicated leader outlining a company's AI strategy: "We have an AI czar ... she's amazing, and she's dictated our strategy moving forward. So I think that assigning somebody whose job is to wake up every day and [address] how to implement the infrastructure is quite important." Asked if he is working less after implementing AI more into his day, Herscovici said, "absolutely not," adding that, "I am getting more done in my eight or nine or 12 hour day, that's for sure." Salil Parekh, managing director and CEO of Infosys, said he's focused on ensuring his workers learn new skills using AI: "The approach we've chosen is to re-skill all our 300,000 employees on AI tools," he said. "So first we do a lot of work, where, in the first few months of training, we encourage the sort of recent graduate to not use any AI tools and learn how software development is done. And then bring in, after two or three months, the usage of tools and see how things are enhanced."

'You're effed': Palantir CEO says AI 'will destroy humanities jobs' - but Gen Z workers are apparently deliberately sabotaging AI rollouts in an effort to fight back

* AI CEOs warn entry level jobs are being taken by AI * Executives don't want to promote employees who can't use AI * Gen Z workers are sabotaging AI rollouts in protest against the technology At the World Economic Forum in January 2026, Palantir CEO and co-founder Alex Karp declared AI "will destroy humanities jobs," but will benefit the market for vocationally trained, creative people. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has also warned about the future effects of AI on the job market, stating that the technology could destroy half of all entry level, white-collar jobs. But a recent report has now found Gen Z workers aren't going down without a fight, with many actively sabotaging their companies' AI rollouts. Gen Z versus AI The report [PDF], conducted by enterprise AI agent firm Writer and research firm Workplace Intelligence, found 29% of employees are actively sabotaging their companies' AI rollout, with the figure jumping to 44% among Gen Z workers. Many employees who feel threatened by AI technology are simply refusing to use AI tools mandated by their company, with others feeding proprietary company information into public AI systems in an effort to sabotage rollouts. But those who refuse to submit to their AI overlords may actually be sabotaging their own careers, with 77% of executives saying they would be less likely to offer promotions or leadership roles to AI abstainers. Younger workers are increasingly recognizing (and feeling the effects) of the growing disconnect between productivity and compensation, with AI likely exacerbating the problem. A 2016 study by the National Association of Colleges and Employees (NACE) found that the average starting salary for a bachelor's graduate has risen by only 5% (adjusted for inflation) since 1960. The negative opinion on AI isn't held by Gen Z workers alone. An NBC News poll recently found that 46% of registered US voters hold a negative view of AI, compared to just 26% with a positive view. Many of these views are likely the result of the threat posed by AI to white-collar jobs across the labor market. An Anthropic study published in March found that its Claude model is capable of completing most of the tasks associated with jobs in the fields of computer science, law, business, and finance. In an interview with Axios, the Palantir CEO said, "If you are the kind of person that would've gone to Yale, classically high IQ, and you have generalized knowledge but it's not specific, you're effed." Gen Z workers entering the workforce are finding themselves at odds with the modern world, having spent their formative years pursuing an education for jobs that might not exist within a decade - and the message from AI CEOs and executives is clear; evolve or die. Follow TechRadar on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds. Make sure to click the Follow button! And of course you can also follow TechRadar on TikTok for news, reviews, unboxings in video form, and get regular updates from us on WhatsApp too.

'Stop hiring humans'? Silicon Valley confronts AI job panic

San Francisco (United States) (AFP) - AI industry insiders want workers to code smarter, think harder and lean into their humanity -- but still dodge the question of how many jobs artificial intelligence will destroy. The reassurance rang out across HumanX, a four-day conference drawing some 6,500 investors, entrepreneurs and tech executives, even as a blunt advertisement at the entrance set the tone: "Stop hiring humans." On the main stage, May Habib, chief executive of an AI platform called Writer, told the audience that Fortune 500 bosses are having a "collective panic attack" on the subject. The anxiety is well-founded. More and more companies are directly citing AI in announcing job cuts. High-profile examples are on the rise: Salesforce laid off 4,000 customer support workers, saying AI now handles 50 percent of its work. Block chief Jack Dorsey announced plans to cut the company's headcount nearly in half, citing "intelligence tools" that have fundamentally changed how companies operate. Not all claims have gone uncontested -- some economists say firms are pointing to AI to rationalize layoffs that are really about past overhiring or cost-cutting ahead of massive infrastructure investments. OpenAI's Sam Altman has spoken of "AI-washing," and most speakers at the San Francisco event similarly dismissed the invocation of AI as a false pretext for job cuts -- even as they freely predicted disruption was just around the corner. AI is going to "transform every single company, every single job, every single way that we do work," said Matt Garman, chief executive of cloud computing giant Amazon Web Services. 'Pretty unsettling' The debate remains heated. Two years ago, Nvidia chief Jensen Huang declared that the ultimate goal was to make it so "nobody has to program" or code. "We will look back on that as some of the worst career advice ever given," Andrew Ng, founder of training platform DeepLearning.AI, shot back on Tuesday. In his view, coding is not an obsolete skill -- AI has simply made it available to more people. Another argument has taken hold in Silicon Valley: interpersonal skills will become more valuable than ever, with some voices going so far as to tout a humanities education as sound tech career preparation. "As AI can do more of a job, the things that will distinguish and differentiate a given employee are going to be the human skills -- critical thinking, communication, teamwork," said Greg Hart, chief executive of training platform Coursera, which has seen enrollment in its critical thinking courses triple over the past year. Florian Douetteau, chief executive of Dataiku, a French company specializing in enterprise AI, agreed. The real human added value, he told AFP, is the "capacity for judgment." He described a world in which an AI agent works through the night, its human counterpart reviews the results in the morning, and then the agent resumes working autonomously during the lunch break. But the entrepreneur nevertheless expressed unease. "We are going to have a generation of people who will never have written anything from start to finish in their entire lives," he said. "That's pretty unsettling." 'Mistake was not preparing' All of this advice risks ringing hollow for a generation already struggling to land a first job. AI has automated entry-level tasks that once served as on-the-job training. Hiring of candidates with less than one year of experience fell 50 percent between 2019 and 2024 among America's major tech companies, according to a study by investment fund SignalFire. "We should be preparing for the loss of knowledge work jobs in a number of categories," warned former US vice president Al Gore. As the week's lone genuinely dissenting voice, Gore called for a real action plan to map threatened jobs and prepare workers for career transitions, so as not to repeat the mistakes of the globalization era. "The mistake was not globalization. The mistake was in not preparing for the consequences of globalization," he said, drawing a parallel with the deindustrialization that followed the offshoring wave of the 2000s. "Maybe we don't want to talk about it," he added, "because it may slow down the enthusiasm for the technology."

AI CEOs warn of job loss for entry-level positions at WEF 2026

Palantir CEO Alex Karp stated that AI "will destroy humanities jobs" but benefit vocationally trained, creative individuals, during the World Economic Forum in January 2026. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei echoed this sentiment, warning that AI could annihilate half of all entry-level, white-collar jobs. Research by Writer and Workplace Intelligence revealed that 29% of employees are sabotaging their companies' AI rollouts. Among Gen Z workers, this figure rises to 44%, as many employees feel threatened by AI technology. Some employees refuse to use AI tools or intentionally input proprietary information into public AI systems to hinder implementations. A significant 77% of executives reported they would be less likely to promote or offer leadership roles to employees who abstain from using AI. The growing disconnect between productivity and compensation affects younger workers, worsened by the emergence of AI. A 2016 study from the National Association of Colleges and Employers indicated that starting salaries for bachelor's graduates have increased by only 5% since 1960, adjusted for inflation. An NBC News poll found that 46% of registered US voters view AI negatively, contrasting with 26% who view it positively. This adverse perception likely stems from AI's potential impact on the job market, particularly for white-collar positions. An Anthropic study published in March revealed that its Claude model can perform tasks related to jobs in computer science, law, business, and finance. In an Axios interview, Karp emphasized that individuals with generalized knowledge but lacking specificity are "effed." As Gen Z workers prepare to enter the workforce, many find their training may not align with future job opportunities, leading to conflict with AI-driven market demands. The message from AI executives appears clear: adapt or risk obsolescence.

AI's Impact on Employment Clashes With C-suite Optimism

While some proponents believe AI will bring about an employment boom, so far its effect has been to dampen entry-level hiring while delivering mixed results on productivity. In March, the US jobs market recorded 178,000 new jobs, marking little change from the month before, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The anemic growth in job listings comes amid volatile policy swings from the White House, increased energy prices due to the US and Israel's war with Iran and, according to recent research, AI disruptions to the labor market. Proponents of AI and large language models have claimed that the tech will bring about an economic boom, thanks to the promise of efficiency breakthroughs. But as AI becomes more integrated into daily business operations, there is a widening gulf between that promise of growth and efficiency, and what is actually happening. On March 6, venture capitalist and Netscape co-founder Marc Andreessen said on X that fears about AI job displacement were overblown. He also posted an article from Business Insider stating that, at least in tech, job openings are on the rise. Citing data from TrueUp, a tech jobs tracker, Business Insider said that job openings at tech companies have doubled to 67,000 since 2023. But openings don't necessarily translate to hiring. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, most employment growth in March did not happen in the tech industry. Of the 178,000 new jobs added in March, healthcare employed 76,000, construction grew by 26,000, transportation and warehousing added 21,000 and employment in social assistance increased by 14,000. While the report doesn't have a single section tracking the tech industry, related services like computing infrastructure providers and web search portals saw a 1,500 job decrease, or almost no change, respectively. Computer systems design and related services lost 13,000 jobs. Related: Jack Dorsey's Block to cut 4,000 jobs in AI-driven restructuring AI has actually axed 16,000 jobs per month over the past year, according to a recent report from Goldman Sachs, as cited by Fortune. In particular, AI has led to a collapse in hiring for entry-level roles. A 2025 study from SignalFire found that new grad hiring had dropped 50% compared to pre-COVID-19 pandemic levels. "The door to tech once swung wide open for new grads. Today, it's barely cracked. The industry's obsession with hiring bright-eyed grads right out of college is colliding with new realities: smaller funding rounds, shrinking teams, fewer new grad programs, and the rise of AI," the SignalFire study stated. This disruption could create ripples far into the future. According to Goldman Sachs, "AI-driven displacement could impose lasting costs on affected workers, worsening labor market outcomes for several years." "A key mechanism behind these worse outcomes is occupational downgrading. Workers displaced by technology are more likely to move into more routine occupations requiring fewer analytical and interpersonal skills, likely because the same technological shifts that eliminated their positions also eroded the value of their existing skills," they continued. These job losses are justified by the theory that AI will, at the very least, make workplaces more productive. But even that isn't a given. Executives are still overwhelmingly supportive of AI. According to Harvard Business Review, 80% of leaders report weekly use of AI, with 74% reporting positive returns on early deployments. But workers don't feel the same. A study from HR consulting firm Mercer found that, for 43% of workers, their job is more frustrating. One major issue is the number of mistakes churned out by generative AI. "For every 10 hours of efficiency gained through AI, nearly four hours are lost to fixing its output," a Workday report stated. AI can also be used to offload labor onto coworkers in what researchers at the Harvard Business Review have called "workslop" i.e., "content that appears polished but lacks real substance, offloading cognitive labor onto coworkers." They said that "41% of workers have encountered such AI-generated output, costing nearly two hours of rework per instance and creating downstream productivity, trust, and collaboration issues." According to Workday, only 14% of respondents to their survey said they "consistently achieve net-positive outcomes from AI use." Part of the gulf between executives' understanding of AI and the reality at the productive level may be explained by the technology itself. Per the Harvard Business Review, "Senior leaders tend to use AI for high-level synthesis, strategic drafting, and decision support, tasks where the technology performs well, so the current capabilities tend to benefit their work." For messier day-to-day operations like "workflows built over years, teams with uneven technical comfort, output that has to be consistently right, not just fast," it doesn't work so well. "When the tool works, both groups understand and reap the benefits. When it fails, typically only one of them has to cope with the aftermath." Brian Solis, the head of global innovation at enterprise AI firm ServiceNow, said that this divide has created an "AI tax," i.e., "More checking. More rework. More anxiety. Faster pace. AI slop. Less trust." Andreessen may not believe that the AI job-cut narratives are real, but OpenAI does. The AI company has acknowledged the impact the technology has on employment, and has even released a series of policy proposals to address it. The list contains ideas that are "intentionally early and exploratory" that serve as a "a starting point for discussion that we invite others to build on." It includes proposals to expand healthcare coverage, retirement savings and setting a new industrial policy agenda. Far from Andreessen's optimism, OpenAI's proposal included a warning: "Unless policy keeps pace with technological change, the institutions and safety nets needed to navigate this transition could fall behind."

Culture Council: AI Won't Take Your Job; It'll Make Sure You Actually Do It

I've been knee-deep in this AI conversation for years now; and for the first time, the story everyone's telling feels off. A year ago, every headline professed AI's uncapped potential. AI was reportedly days, hours, minutes, seconds away from swallowing every job from coders to clerks. The hype was spectacular. Now, those same outlets are betting on its 'inevitable' collapse amid US economic struggles. I've seen friends get laid off and countless fellow startups close down shop, supposedly because of 'AI efficiency' and redirected resources. But the truth is messier -- and a lot more human -- than headlines suggest. As CEO and co-founder of Calaxy, I've spent the last few years building in the creator economy. I've written countless articles, dug into markets live on TV as a financial analyst, and even made the occasional angel investment. These experiences have shaped what I'd call a nuanced but practical view of the tech lifecycle, from true incentives to false promises, and everything in between. Here's what I've deduced firsthand: AI isn't coming for your job in the way people fear. Its aspirations are far more subtle. Its goal is to make the humans, specifically those that remain post-efficiency cuts, actually do their work. It can't replace humans yet, but it's making smaller groups way more productive. Despite Elon Musk's ambitious push to mass-produce humanoid robots for everyday tasks, it appears that we're still several years away from achieving that vision. His Tesla Cybercabs have similarly underdelivered, with fewer than five fully autonomous vehicles operating in Austin -- far short of 2026 projections. For now, they still require human drivers for oversight. These shortcomings highlight the awkward midpoint of AI adoption. The grand promises have fallen short, but there's a thriving market for AI systems that leverage humans to close gaps. Rentahuman.ai, for example. They launched in February and already had 500,000 users by mid-March. Its model is simple: AI agents diagnose tasks, assess options and hire the best humans to execute them, minimizing inefficiencies and delays. It's not about replacing humans, it's about turning a small crew of them into superhumans. I see this becoming the new middle management layer across corporate America. Companies won't need whole teams to coordinate in clunky, unproductive meetings; one AI with a few humans will get the job done cheaper and faster. The Rolling Stone Culture Council is an invitation-only community for Influencers, Innovators and Creatives. Do I qualify? And now the whole thing is diluted with content. The labor market has been in shambles for years. The average search lasts three to six months; most give up. Thirty-four percent of job seekers report even longer searches. Recruiters are inundated with applications as a result. Seasoned professionals are settling for entry-level jobs to survive, while new graduates are largely shut out. Both sides have turned to AI to cope. Job seekers use it to write their resumes. Recruiters let it screen them. The result is a flood of polished-but-generic applications that all sound the same. As a startup operator, I've watched and warned my own team about it. The overuse of AI in your copy, pitches and outreach is both noticeable and detrimental. Economists advise employed individuals not to leave their posts for replacing them, even for the most talented, is nearly impossible. Things will likely worsen before they get better. AI-saturated hiring is the new normal. Without it, neither side could handle all the noise. I'm using it at Calaxy myself. Since last year, firms like JPMorgan have rolled out AI for performance reviews to "remove bias" and make feedback more data-driven. It's still imperfect and requires human oversight -- much like those Cybercabs -- but they point to a future shaped by automation. I've leaned on AI too. I use Claude every day as my personal assistant -- it handles research, draft, basic analyses and keeps me organized. I've also used it to structure performance reviews given Calaxy's my first true managerial experience. AI surfaces patterns I might miss and keeps things consistent; however, it's no replacement for me. It just makes sure I actually show up prepared and honest. It holds me accountable to do the human part of my role better. Nothing's been the same since Covid. Nostalgia's surging, and the timeline proves it. A growing share of passive Americans are losing hope, while others are shamelessly hunting for ways to game the system. I understand why leadership has turned to intelligent systems to bring order back, but some of it is unnecessary. There are clear benefits today but I worry about how far we'll let it go. Will AI deliver the efficiency we were promised? We can't be sure but time will tell. With Sam Altman's recent comments about treating AI like a finite utility -- billed like electricity or water -- I'm not too sure if AI will be the liberating force it was once promised to be. So yeah, AI won't take all our jobs. But it's going to make sure we do them. The question is whether we're ready for that version of the future.