Artificial intelligence is reshaping the world in front of our eyes. The concerns around AI, however, extend beyond the uncertainty and disruption that accompany any other radical technological change. They stem in part from the direction AI development has taken: many leading companies are engaged in a single-minded pursuit of artificial general intelligence (AGI).

Why AI hasn’t caused a job apocalypse — so far

AGI is generally understood as an AI system that can match or exceed human capabilities on most economically valuable tasks. In such a world, the automation of work would not be limited to specific industries or routine jobs. Instead, machines would take over many forms of work, including highly skilled professions. The consequences of this displacement of human labour would be unparalleled.

To draw attention to this urgent public-policy challenge, I joined thousands of economists and AI researchers in signing We Must Act Now, a statement urging policymakers and technology leaders to steer AI towards complementing, rather than replacing, human labour.

Studies of the US labour market suggest that, since 1980, automation has played a crucial part in increasing inequality by reducing demand for workers who perform routine tasks (D. Acemoglu and P. Restrepo Econometrica 90, 1973–2016; 2022). The adoption of industrial robots in manufacturing offers a clear example: evidence shows that although productivity has increased, many of the communities most exposed to automation experienced employment and wage declines (D. Acemoglu and P. Restrepo J. Polit. Econ. 128, 2188–2244; 2020).

The dynamic already visible with industrial robots is likely to intensify as AI adoption expands. What is at stake is not only shared prosperity, but also our democratic system. Societies cannot remain stable if large numbers of people are excluded from economic opportunity.

AI is transforming the economy — understanding its impact requires both data and imagination

However, this outcome is not inevitable. Technology does not have a predetermined social purpose, nor does it dictate a single future. This is especially true of AI, which includes a range of technologies. The current focus is on automation: replacing human labour wherever possible.

But there is another path. AI tools can also be designed to complement workers, enhancing their capabilities and productivity, rather than substituting for them. Such a pro-worker approach could deliver gains that are shared more broadly and could include stronger productivity growth.

Take teaching, for instance. Rather than replacing teachers, AI tools could help them to identify areas in which students are struggling and enable teachers to provide more personalized support at scale. Policymakers could encourage this kind of worker-complementing innovation through regulation and targeted incentives.