Monthly Archives: May, 2026

Amid rapidly growing adoption of enterprise-level AI agents, there’s a disconnect emerging between ambition and execution. 

Although 85% of organizations say they want to be agentic within the next three years, 76% say their current operations and infrastructure can’t support that change. They cite a lack of readiness across people, processes, and workflows. 

The sticky tape problem

The challenge is that many organisations are often layering AI agents onto existing operations, rather than reimagine the operating model and how work will need to be rewired, explains Prasun Shah, global CTO for workforce consulting and chief AI officer at PwC UK Consulting. “They’re embedding AI employees into what is a human operating model,” layering on AI agents to existing workplace structures when “this is like adding sticky tapes to parts of an operating model that is breaking.”

Doing so may be preventing organizations from unlocking the full value agentic AI offers, creating circumstances where disillusionment can quickly creep in. That full value lies in agents’ capacity to execute entire workflows with limited human input. They can coordinate complex tasks, make independent decisions, adjust to changing conditions, and iterate performance. 

In early proving grounds that span customer service, HR, and sales, it’s already estimated that AI agents could accelerate business processes by as much as 30% to 50% and low-value work time by 25% to 40% when deployed at scale. But with this capability comes greater complexity and the need for an enterprise-wide change.

Growing the AI vocabulary 

Enterprise agentic AI platform Ema describes this change as agentic business transformation (ABT), a term it coined last year in partnership with HFS Research, in an attempt to plug what it sees as a gap in the existing lexicon about AI agents, and to provide enterprises with a new framework with which to think about their own adoption of the technology. 

“None of the existing vocabulary captures the full scope of the change,” explains Ema CEO and founder Surojit Chatterjee. “Digital transformation was about moving from paper to software. AI transformation was about adding artificial intelligence to existing processes. Co-pilot is about AI assisting in various human tasks. But ABT is something categorically different: It’s the integration of AI agents into the fabric of the organization.” 

For Shah, the dedicated term (ABT) “helps drive the need to redesign an organization in its entirety: its operating model, its workflows, decision rights, and performance management systems.” He emphasizes that “everything that’s needed to ensure those agents are actually active participants in value creation, rather than just point tools or productivity aids.”

According to Ema, ABT encompasses three core pillars: an organization’s technology stack, its workforce, and the metrics used for success. 

AI agents as connective tissue

The first pillar of ABT is the technology stack. “Your existing tech stack was designed for human-operated, application-centric workflows,” says Chatterjee. “It needs to be reconsidered when the actor is an AI agent operating at machine speed across multiple systems simultaneously.”

 As AI agents are integrated into an organization, enterprises will need to pivot from a set of linear processes and steps, to rewiring work in a very different way, explains Shah. That’s because the value in AI agents isn’t as another layer in an existing technology stack but as a connective tissue, he explains, moving between or across layers to coordinate a high-level task or retrieve and interpret data from multiple discrete applications. AI agents can create “a true competitive differentiation for an enterprise” by making decisions based on this capacity to contextualize, he says. “That is where the next battleground will be.”

To build this connective tissue, leaders need to adapt their technology stack to surface higher quality decisions from AI agents, prioritizing access to multiple datasets and applications simultaneously to develop tacit knowledge. “Organizations that make this architectural shift become genuinely more adaptive,” says Chatterjee. “When a new business requirement emerges, you don’t wait six months for a software vendor to build a feature. You configure an AI employee using natural language and connect it to the systems it needs. The time from business to production workflow drops from months to days.”

The workforce, redesigned

As AI agents are deployed for more use cases, enterprise leaders must consider what this means for dynamics across their workforce, the second pillar of ABT.

Workforce structures today deviate little from the hierarchical model of the early days of industrialization. To maximize efficiency and scale, processes are standardized, tasks are clearly delineated between strategic business units (SBUs), and employees progress up through an organization based on their capacity to optimize output from teams below them. But with AI agents that can execute, coordinate, and optimize tasks—often without managerial coordination—the lines of that established hierarchy become blurred.

In a workforce that blends AI agents and human employees, managers will be freed up from many execution-based tasks but take on new responsibilities associated with managing hybrid teams. Managers “will need to be able to manage issues around trust, explainability, psychological safety, and even status dynamics” to navigate new tensions that could arise in a hybrid workforce, says Shah.

The impact of agentic AI on existing workforce structures goes far beyond the management layer, too. McKinsey predicts that by 2030, three-quarters of current jobs will require redesign, upskilling, or redeployment, and organizations will need to act swiftly to amend recruitment, retention, and remuneration. 

From output to outcome

Success metrics are the third and final pillar of ABT. 

As AI agents assume greater ownership of core enterprise processes, taking on collaborative roles alongside human employees, traditional workforce metrics that focus on activity or output—such as calls handled or reports filed—no longer make sense. 

“When you add AI employees into the workforce, activity metrics become meaningless or actively misleading,” says Chatterjee. “An AI employee can handle a thousand customer interactions in the time it takes a human to handle ten. If you measure success by interactions handled, you’ll conclude the AI is working brilliantly while missing whether any of those interactions actually drove customer satisfaction, retention, or revenue.” To correct this, enterprises must develop a new set of metrics that focus on outcome rather than output. That is, metrics on the broader benefits or changes achieved, rather than individual deliverables. 

For example, when one of Ema’s large enterprise customers overhauled its own metrics, switching from tool metrics like cost per query and AI accuracy, to outcomes like the percentage of contracts reviewed without human escalation, the measured ROI from agentic AI tripled within two quarters. The changes meant “this customer stopped building point solutions in high-volume, low-complexity workflows and started deploying AI employees where the outcome value was highest,” says Chatterjee.

Integrating new metrics may also require a complete reconfiguration of reward and talent management processes, as well as accountability and ownership within organizations, points out Shah. In human-AI teams, for example, although ethical and fiduciary responsibilities will likely remain with human employees, operational accountability will become significantly more diffused to reflect the systemic role of AI agents.

This change will raise new questions that senior leadership teams will need to wrestle with, Shah adds. They’ll need to consider: Who is accountable when an AI employee makes a mistake? What happens when AI and humans disagree? What guardrails should be erected to safeguard customers? 

Laying the groundwork for systems-level change

Systems-level change is gradual. These are complex lines of inquiry that experts continue to grapple with. But in kickstarting internal dialogue about the core pillars of ABT—the workforce, the technology stack, and the metrics by which success can be gauged—leaders can lay the groundwork for an enterprise better poised to embrace AI agents at a systems level and start to close the gap between their ambition and execution. 

This content was produced by Insights, the custom content arm of MIT Technology Review. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff. It was researched, designed, and written by human writers, editors, analysts, and illustrators. This includes the writing of surveys and collection of data for surveys. AI tools that may have been used were limited to secondary production processes that passed thorough human review.

 

Amid rapidly growing adoption of enterprise-level AI agents, there’s a disconnect emerging between ambition and execution. 

Although 85% of organizations say they want to be agentic within the next three years, 76% say their current operations and infrastructure can’t support that change. They cite a lack of readiness across people, processes, and workflows. 

The sticky tape problem

The challenge is that many organisations are often layering AI agents onto existing operations, rather than reimagine the operating model and how work will need to be rewired, explains Prasun Shah, global CTO for workforce consulting and chief AI officer at PwC UK Consulting. “They’re embedding AI employees into what is a human operating model,” layering on AI agents to existing workplace structures when “this is like adding sticky tapes to parts of an operating model that is breaking.”

Doing so may be preventing organizations from unlocking the full value agentic AI offers, creating circumstances where disillusionment can quickly creep in. That full value lies in agents’ capacity to execute entire workflows with limited human input. They can coordinate complex tasks, make independent decisions, adjust to changing conditions, and iterate performance. 

In early proving grounds that span customer service, HR, and sales, it’s already estimated that AI agents could accelerate business processes by as much as 30% to 50% and low-value work time by 25% to 40% when deployed at scale. But with this capability comes greater complexity and the need for an enterprise-wide change.

Growing the AI vocabulary 

Enterprise agentic AI platform Ema describes this change as agentic business transformation (ABT), a term it coined last year in partnership with HFS Research, in an attempt to plug what it sees as a gap in the existing lexicon about AI agents, and to provide enterprises with a new framework with which to think about their own adoption of the technology. 

“None of the existing vocabulary captures the full scope of the change,” explains Ema CEO and founder Surojit Chatterjee. “Digital transformation was about moving from paper to software. AI transformation was about adding artificial intelligence to existing processes. Co-pilot is about AI assisting in various human tasks. But ABT is something categorically different: It’s the integration of AI agents into the fabric of the organization.” 

For Shah, the dedicated term (ABT) “helps drive the need to redesign an organization in its entirety: its operating model, its workflows, decision rights, and performance management systems.” He emphasizes that “everything that’s needed to ensure those agents are actually active participants in value creation, rather than just point tools or productivity aids.”

According to Ema, ABT encompasses three core pillars: an organization’s technology stack, its workforce, and the metrics used for success. 

AI agents as connective tissue

The first pillar of ABT is the technology stack. “Your existing tech stack was designed for human-operated, application-centric workflows,” says Chatterjee. “It needs to be reconsidered when the actor is an AI agent operating at machine speed across multiple systems simultaneously.”

 As AI agents are integrated into an organization, enterprises will need to pivot from a set of linear processes and steps, to rewiring work in a very different way, explains Shah. That’s because the value in AI agents isn’t as another layer in an existing technology stack but as a connective tissue, he explains, moving between or across layers to coordinate a high-level task or retrieve and interpret data from multiple discrete applications. AI agents can create “a true competitive differentiation for an enterprise” by making decisions based on this capacity to contextualize, he says. “That is where the next battleground will be.”

To build this connective tissue, leaders need to adapt their technology stack to surface higher quality decisions from AI agents, prioritizing access to multiple datasets and applications simultaneously to develop tacit knowledge. “Organizations that make this architectural shift become genuinely more adaptive,” says Chatterjee. “When a new business requirement emerges, you don’t wait six months for a software vendor to build a feature. You configure an AI employee using natural language and connect it to the systems it needs. The time from business to production workflow drops from months to days.”

The workforce, redesigned

As AI agents are deployed for more use cases, enterprise leaders must consider what this means for dynamics across their workforce, the second pillar of ABT.

Workforce structures today deviate little from the hierarchical model of the early days of industrialization. To maximize efficiency and scale, processes are standardized, tasks are clearly delineated between strategic business units (SBUs), and employees progress up through an organization based on their capacity to optimize output from teams below them. But with AI agents that can execute, coordinate, and optimize tasks—often without managerial coordination—the lines of that established hierarchy become blurred.

In a workforce that blends AI agents and human employees, managers will be freed up from many execution-based tasks but take on new responsibilities associated with managing hybrid teams. Managers “will need to be able to manage issues around trust, explainability, psychological safety, and even status dynamics” to navigate new tensions that could arise in a hybrid workforce, says Shah.

The impact of agentic AI on existing workforce structures goes far beyond the management layer, too. McKinsey predicts that by 2030, three-quarters of current jobs will require redesign, upskilling, or redeployment, and organizations will need to act swiftly to amend recruitment, retention, and remuneration. 

From output to outcome

Success metrics are the third and final pillar of ABT. 

As AI agents assume greater ownership of core enterprise processes, taking on collaborative roles alongside human employees, traditional workforce metrics that focus on activity or output—such as calls handled or reports filed—no longer make sense. 

“When you add AI employees into the workforce, activity metrics become meaningless or actively misleading,” says Chatterjee. “An AI employee can handle a thousand customer interactions in the time it takes a human to handle ten. If you measure success by interactions handled, you’ll conclude the AI is working brilliantly while missing whether any of those interactions actually drove customer satisfaction, retention, or revenue.” To correct this, enterprises must develop a new set of metrics that focus on outcome rather than output. That is, metrics on the broader benefits or changes achieved, rather than individual deliverables. 

For example, when one of Ema’s large enterprise customers overhauled its own metrics, switching from tool metrics like cost per query and AI accuracy, to outcomes like the percentage of contracts reviewed without human escalation, the measured ROI from agentic AI tripled within two quarters. The changes meant “this customer stopped building point solutions in high-volume, low-complexity workflows and started deploying AI employees where the outcome value was highest,” says Chatterjee.

Integrating new metrics may also require a complete reconfiguration of reward and talent management processes, as well as accountability and ownership within organizations, points out Shah. In human-AI teams, for example, although ethical and fiduciary responsibilities will likely remain with human employees, operational accountability will become significantly more diffused to reflect the systemic role of AI agents.

This change will raise new questions that senior leadership teams will need to wrestle with, Shah adds. They’ll need to consider: Who is accountable when an AI employee makes a mistake? What happens when AI and humans disagree? What guardrails should be erected to safeguard customers? 

Laying the groundwork for systems-level change

Systems-level change is gradual. These are complex lines of inquiry that experts continue to grapple with. But in kickstarting internal dialogue about the core pillars of ABT—the workforce, the technology stack, and the metrics by which success can be gauged—leaders can lay the groundwork for an enterprise better poised to embrace AI agents at a systems level and start to close the gap between their ambition and execution. 

This content was produced by Insights, the custom content arm of MIT Technology Review. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff. It was researched, designed, and written by human writers, editors, analysts, and illustrators. This includes the writing of surveys and collection of data for surveys. AI tools that may have been used were limited to secondary production processes that passed thorough human review.

 

Amid rapidly growing adoption of enterprise-level AI agents, there’s a disconnect emerging between ambition and execution. Although 85% of organizations say they want to be...

Artificial intelligence has not so far produced a clean story of mass unemployment. Aggregate employment in developed countries remains broadly stable, and recent assessments have found limited evidence that AI has shifted the headline numbers. But a troubling change may be hiding beneath the surface: the quiet weakening of the first rung of the career ladder.

The most worrisome evidence is showing up exactly where we should expect it first: in early-career hiring. A working paper released in November 2025 by the Stanford Digital Economy Lab found that workers aged 22 to 25 in the most AI-exposed occupations experienced a 16% relative decline in employment after the spread of generative AI, even after controlling for other factors that might affect firms’ employment decisions. An Anthropic report from March 2026 provides suggestive evidence that led to a similar conclusion.

More experienced workers in those same occupations did not suffer the same decline. Employment is not also declining in the entry-level jobs with low AI exposure. The concern is specific to early-career jobs that are exposed to AI.

That is not a minor signal. It suggests that firms may be using AI to substitute for the junior tasks through which people traditionally gain their first foothold—at least for those in jobs where generative AI is used extensively, like software developers, customer service representatives, computer programmers, and information systems managers.

The time is now to make changes in the way we train, prepare, and support young people who are about to enter the workforce. Educational institutions need to reorient for the era of an AI-augmented workforce. Governments must incentivize businesses to hire and train early-career workers. Businesses, in turn, need to recognize the importance of developing a long-term workforce experienced in AI—a process that begins with entry-level workers. And students themselves should take on the responsibility of not only becoming AI fluent but learning how to apply that knowledge in various fields.

In short, we must change the way we have traditionally thought of entry-level work.

This is especially true because the broader labor market for recent graduates is also softening. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York reported that in the fourth quarter of 2025, the unemployment rate for recent college graduates rose to 5.6%, while the underemployment rate (the share of graduates working in jobs that typically do not require a college degree) reached 42.5%, its highest level since the covid pandemic. No single statistic can prove that AI is the sole cause of that deterioration. Hiring in general is way down post-pandemic, and young people are particularly vulnerable to the slowdown. But it would be a mistake to ignore the possibility that AI is accelerating an already difficult transition from school to work.

Behind these statistics is a great deal of personal distress. Recent graduates today often submit hundreds of applications before they receive a single offer, and surveys consistently find elevated rates of anxiety, financial precarity, and burnout among young workers in extended job searches. If AI quietly closes the door on typical early jobs, people will pay the price in delayed independence, postponed family formation, and the sense that their first serious professional efforts have been refused.

It also matters because entry-level jobs are part of the economy’s training system. Junior analysts learn which numbers can be trusted. Young software developers learn how production systems fail. New marketers learn how customers behave outside the neat language of dashboards. Early-career legal and financial staff learn how rules, judgment, deadlines, and human relationships actually interact. If AI absorbs more of the drafting, triage, coding, summarizing, and administrative preparation that once helped train entry-level workers, firms may become more efficient in the short run while society becomes less capable in the longer run.

The right way to improve the skills of young workers is not to tell them, “Learn to code.” That advice, which shaped more than a decade of federal initiatives and university expansion, rested on the premise that coding was a stable, scalable skill almost anyone could learn and parlay into a middle-class job. The premise no longer holds. The layer of work AI handles well—translating a specification into routine code, reproducing standard patterns, debugging predictable errors—is precisely the layer that “learn to code” programs were built around.

Supervising AI systems in their work is now a much more relevant skill. So understanding the outputs AI systems produce will become very important.

To help people develop such skills, we should require universities, community colleges, and professional programs to embed AI literacy, data literacy, prompt-based workflow skills, verification skills, and domain judgment into ordinary degrees. Every graduate should know how to use AI tools, check their output, understand their limits, and combine them with human expertise. This matters even for graduates entering occupations that look relatively safe from AI, such as those in health care. Almost every job contains tasks—drafting, summarizing, scheduling, research, basic data work, routine communication—for which AI is already a substantial productivity tool.

The competition most young workers will experience is not human versus machine but colleague versus AI-augmented colleague. For most young workers, the realistic path to making themselves valuable is not to avoid AI but to become fluent in the technology and combine that with domain judgment, contextual reasoning, and human relationship skills. To this end, schools should emphasize paid co-ops, apprenticeships, and employer-linked projects so students build judgment in real workplaces before they graduate.

Governments should also create targeted tax credits, wage subsidies, and training grants for employers that hire early-career workers into structured, AI-augmented roles. The architecture for this kind of conditional, behavior-linked subsidy already exists in US tax policy. What is missing is a version of these instruments built specifically around early-career AI-augmented work.

Firms, for their part, should stop making hiring decisions based only on short-run cost savings from AI. Young workers are not valuable only for the tasks they perform this quarter. Their value lies in learning, skill formation, institutional memory, and future productivity. Entry-level hiring is not just an expense. It is an investment in the future stock of judgment inside the firm. The most effective AI-augmented senior workforce of the late 2030s will be drawn overwhelmingly from the junior cohort of today. Firms that automate away the learning stage may improve their immediate margins but find themselves, a decade from now, without anyone who understands how their own AI-driven workflows actually behave.

Students graduating this spring and next face a tough labor market in transition. AI fluency is becoming a commodity. Domain expertise without AI fluency is being outpaced. The combination is what is genuinely scarce. The mechanical engineer with knowledge of manufacturing and AI proficiency; the software programmer with knowledge of financial services who is also a whiz at AI—these are the types of people who will be in demand.

Georgios Petropoulos is an assistant professor at the USC Marshall School of Business. His research focuses on the implications of information technologies for innovation, competition policy, and labor markets.

 

Haven’t you heard? White-collar jobs are going away, decimated by AI. Waves of layoffs in the tech sector (most recently at Coinbase and Meta and Cisco) are said to presage what will soon come for all of us knowledge workers. But before you quit your job as a software developer or financial analyst—or tech journalist—and look to join the plumbers’ union, it’s worth considering today’s economic research on whether artificial intelligence has actually begun to devour white-collar work.

Analysis of the data gathered for the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) shows that the unemployment rate for the jobs potentially most affected by AI is actually lower than that for occupations less exposed to the technology. And, critically in the mind of economists, there are no signs that large numbers of people are shifting from jobs threatened by AI to supposedly safer ones, such as those involving mostly manual labor.

While the current labor statistics don’t preclude a sudden job upheaval in the coming years, they do throw doubt on the inevitability of the doomsday scenarios and the pace at which they’d unfold. Everyone in the AI community, it seems, is predicting that the technology will soon wipe out jobs, and everyone, it also seems, knows some young wannabe workers who can’t find one. Perhaps we haven’t seen any major disruption in the labor market statistics yet, people often say, but just wait. 

But maybe we should pay attention to what the data is showing us. And right now, the numbers paint a picture of a relatively stable labor market in which AI disruptions remain largely speculative.

“It could be disruptive, but the data is telling us right now that disruption is not yet here, and we have time to plan.”

“All of the available evidence to date suggests that AI’s impact on current labor market conditions is likely small right now,” says Erika McEntarfer, a labor economist who headed the BLS until President Trump fired her last fall after a jobs report that displeased the administration. (Not surprisingly, BLS reports of sluggish job growth have continued since her dismissal.)

McEntarfer, who is now a fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, says the relatively small impact that AI is having so far on today’s labor market “surprises many people, but it shouldn’t. What we know from history is that it takes time for innovations to work their way through changes in industries and changes in occupations. AI is unlikely to transform labor markets until it first transforms businesses.”

McEntarfer points to US Census data showing that only one in five companies are using AI in any business function. “The data are a great reality check on the fear that AI will be enormously disruptive,” she says. “It could be. It likely will be disruptive, but the data is telling us right now that disruption is not yet here, and that we have time to plan.”

Things ain’t great—but the question is why

The US job market, to be sure, sucks for many, especially younger would-be workers. Unemployment rates for recent college graduates stand at around 5.6%, well above the level for all workers. It’s a rate not seen since the pandemic and the years immediately after the 2008 recession. Even more troubling is that hiring rates have been particularly dismal during the post-covid economy, a trend that hits hard at young people trying to enter the workforce. If you’re a recent college graduate and looking for a tech job, no one, it can seem, is hiring.

There are signs that AI is contributing to the pain for the 22-to-25-year-olds seeking jobs in software development and other occupations that are feeling a big impact from AI. But these professions represent just a sliver of the overall labor market. What’s more, it’s uncertain how much blame AI should get for the job woes. Similarly unknown is whether the loss of entry-level jobs in AI-exposed occupations is a harbinger of what’s coming for others or simply an isolated symptom of what economists refer to as a “low-fire, low-hire” labor market caused by a variety of macroeconomic forces.

Insights into these uncertainties will tell us much about our working fates in the transition to an AI economy. There are no shortage of confident assertions and predictions about what is about to happen; while some people forecast the end of work, others say economic history teaches us that technology advances always lead to more and better jobs eventually. 

The honest answer is that no one knows for sure what AI will bring and whether this time will be different. To help figure it out, we need better and far more comprehensive data.

The statistics gleaned from the federal government’s monthly survey of 60,000 households for the BLS provide a broad overview of the changes to the labor market, while academics and even some AI companies have begun trying to gain a more granular view of specific jobs that are being affected. But the existing data-gathering tools don’t adequately explain how AI is affecting the huge and diverse US labor market.

There’s a long list of questions that we don’t have the data to fully answer. How is AI being used in the workplace? Does the increased use of AI mean the technology will replace workers, or will it make them more productive and valuable? Which occupations and skills are most affected? Who is in most peril from the changes? As David Deming, a professor of economics at Harvard University, puts it: “We’re sort of flying blind.”

To gather more insight into some of these questions, Deming and his colleagues have been surveying several thousand people every three months since 2024, asking them basic questions: Do you use generative AI, and how often? Does it save you time at work? Tracking the answers over time gives the economists important clues (it’s used by a little over 40% of workers but adoption varies by sectors) and allows them to estimate productivity gains (they’ve found some, but nothing economy-shaking). It has also helps document how quickly AI has been adopted in the workplace and how it compares with earlier technologies such as the PC and the internet (the pace has been faster but roughly in the same ballpark).

It’s far from a complete picture of how AI is changing work. But it provides some intriguing results; for example, a fair number of workers in manufacturing and other industrial sectors have tried AI. Deming’s results show that while businesses in general might be relatively slow to formally adopt the technology, lots of their employees are using it.

The young are most vulnerable

But by themselves the exposure results are not a true predictor of which jobs will be lost to AI. That depends on the kinds of tasks done by the technology, the extent to which the AI is adopted, various business calculations about the value of workers, and even the costs of deploying AI. But the exposure findings are a valuable starting point. 

In a working paper called “Canaries in the Coal Mine? Six Facts about the Recent Employment Effects of Artificial Intelligence,” researchers at the Stanford Digital Economy Lab looked at 950 jobs, placing the occupations into five categories from least exposed to most. Then they used a vast data set from ADP, the world’s largest payroll provider, to look at employment growth in each of the categories. Their exclusive access to the ADP data set, which is far larger than the one available through the BLS, allows the researchers to better spot impacts by demographic. When they examined what was happening to different age groups, says Erik Brynjolfsson, the director of the lab who led the effort, “it was extremely striking.”

They spotted the drop in head count for 22-to-25-year-olds in the most exposed occupations, such as software development and customer service, beginning in late 2022, when ChatGPT was first publicly released. Other researchers reported evidence that the decline in these jobs began well before ChatGPT and questioned whether the labor market could react so quickly to the introduction of AI technology. 

But while the Stanford researchers acknowledge that other factors in addition to AI probably contributed to the early declines, they say that after controlling for those factors, they saw convincing evidence of a significant effect from AI after 2024 and growing in 2025 to a 16% decline in entry-level jobs in AI-exposed occupations. In contrast, head count grew for older workers in the same occupations, as did the number of jobs in the less exposed occupations.

Digging deeper into the data, the researchers found another important clue, though one that wasn’t totally unexpected. The impact on head counts depended on how AI was being used. It was specifically the jobs where tasks could be automated (that is, AI could do them “with minimal human involvement”) that accounted for the decrease in employment—jobs for people like software developers. In jobs where AI was mainly used but to augment human work, head counts grew faster than the average for entry-level workers.

That’s consistent with one explanation for the woes of many young would-be workers. It could be, according to the Stanford paper, that entry-level jobs depend more on the types of knowledge that people acquire through education but that can readily be mimicked by AI; the authors call this codified knowledge. It might be particularly easy to automate such tasks as entry-level coding. In contrast, older workers have more so-called tacit knowledge, the type based on their experience. That type of wisdom is harder for AI to replace.

Despite the findings about AI’s impact on young workers, Bharat Chandar, an economist at Stanford and one of the authors (along with Brynjolfsson and Ruyu Chen), stresses that it’s still early when it comes to understanding how the technology will affect jobs in the future. It could be that the job loss will spread to older workers and to less AI-exposed occupations, he says. But Chandar says it is also possible that firms and workers will adjust to shifting labor demands, and the effects will level off or even disappear.

A recent paper by economists at the Federal Reserve Board found, not surprisingly, that annual employment growth for coders has slowed significantly—by about 3%—since the introduction of ChatGPT. But here’s a critical detail: Overall employment for coders continues to grow. Employment in coding jobs is still rising, they noted, just more slowly than before 2022. 

In short, coding jobs are not going away, at least not anytime soon. But it’s an occupation that is clearly being transformed by AI.

One of the somewhat surprising wrinkles uncovered by recent research is that wages in sectors highly exposed to AI have risen relatively fast since the introduction of ChatGPT. One explanation is that employers are still willing to pay for the kinds of knowledge and experience that are, at least for now, hard to replace with AI. If true, this suggests not the end of work in AI-exposed jobs but, more specifically, the demise of the typical career model in which young graduates are hired to do software tasks that can be automated and are slowly trained to gain that valuable tacit experience. The earn-while-you-learn model might finally be broken—at least for some occupations.

The simple truth could be that coding skills are no longer a guarantee of a job. That may help to explain the drop-off of computer science majors at schools around the country. Future canaries in the cubicles are sniffing out the dangers of looking for a job when their skills can be matched by AI.

But a closer look at the data shows that students are not necessarily turning away from AI-related careers. Rather, they appear to be tailoring their skills to the changes they see underway as AI becomes increasingly important for various disciplines. Interest is rising in AI-adjacent fields like data science and cybersecurity. One fast-growing major: artificial intelligence itself (a recent addition to many college offerings).

Is this time different?

Anxiety over the potential of AI to replace workers is nothing new. I wrote “How Technology Is Destroying Jobs” in 2013, describing how a slew of new digital technologies, including AI, were beginning to threaten white-collar work. I wasn’t alone. It was a popular theme at a time when the labor market was sluggish and jobs were scarce. 

In one of his last days in office in late 2016, President Obama issued a report written by his top economic and science advisors warning that AI was threatening workers. Among the findings was that automated vehicles—especially driverless trucks—could eliminate 2.2 million to 3.1 million existing US jobs.  Around the same time, one of the pioneers of AI, Geoffrey Hinton, said that “people should stop training radiologists” because it was “completely obvious” the occupation was soon to be replaced by AI.

Perhaps this time is different, and we can put aside the lessons of economic history. Certainly, AI has gained unimaginable powers to do humanlike tasks. Perhaps it will devour jobs in ways that we’ve never seen before. And perhaps that will happen abruptly, without a warning buried in the labor statistics. But the previous bouts of AI job anxiety still hold a prescient lesson: Our real focus needs to be less on the dystopian fears and more on the very real transitions in the workplace that will likely affect millions of people.

“Even if there is not mass or even increased unemployment, the transition could still be very difficult,” says Jed Kolko, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and former undersecretary of commerce in the Biden administration. “And what does a difficult transition period mean? It means people losing jobs, or people’s jobs being redefined in ways that make those jobs pay worse or be less meaningful. And some people whose jobs are threatened may not be able to adapt.”

The more we understand this transition, the better prepared we’ll be to deal with it.  And for that we’ll need better and more complete data.

For McEntarfer, the former commissioner of the BLS, the real question is the speed of any disruption. “If it happens at the normal pace of technological change, labor markets will have time to adapt. If there is a sudden and severe disruption, then that will be a big challenge for policymakers,” she says. “That’s really the most important question facing us right now: how rapid this transformation is going to be.” And, she adds, “we’ll know by watching the data.”

Two decades ago, the country was caught flat-footed by the so-called China shock as free-trade policies led to an influx of imports and the devastation of manufacturing jobs in many parts of the country. It took years for researchers to understand the data showing how the trade policies, generally welcomed by economists, were destroying communities. Today the threat of an economic transformation brought on by AI is far larger and points to potentially far more damage for huge groups of workers.

To head off another devastating labor transition, we will need well-timed government and business policies, especially programs to train and reskill workers. If McEntarfer and other labor economists are correct, we probably have time to design deliberate and effective strategies to manage the transition. But first we need to better understand what is going on—and how fast.

It’s hard to find an economist who is more enthusiastic about AI’s future than Stanford’s Brynjolfsson, who believes that we’re likely on the brink of a huge boost that will transform the economy. “Perhaps the best productivity growth of my lifetime is coming up,” he says.

But Brynjolfsson also warns that a lack of data is severely limiting our visibility into the economic and societal impacts that are coming. At a time when hundreds of billions are being spent on rolling out the technology, he says, “we’re not investing even 1% of that on understanding the transition.”