Why I didn't sign the "We Must Act Now" statement (yet)

2026-01-11 · Source: Noahpinion · Field: Finance & Economics — Economic Analysis & Policy, Artificial Intelligence & Machine Learning · Depth: Intermediate, medium

Summary

The author declined to sign the "We Must Act Now: A Statement on AI's Transformation of the Economy," a document endorsed by numerous economists. This statement claims AI may become radically more powerful within 10 years, driving unprecedented economic transformation with risks like job displacement and opportunities for living standard gains. It calls for leaders to act now to understand AI's economics and "steer AI in a direction that complements humans." The author's refusal stems from the statement's vagueness and the implied endorsement of unknown future policy specifics, particularly the "steering AI" concept. This idea, linked to Daron Acemoglu's "Power and Progress," is critiqued as impractical because predicting technology's labor market effects is impossible. Current data shows employment rates for ages 20-24 and 25-54, and young college grads, are largely unchanged since ChatGPT's existence, with some studies even showing AI adopters hire more workers. The author argues that "steering AI" is based on flawed predictions and that inaction might be the correct economic approach.

Key takeaway

For policymakers or consultants weighing interventions in AI development, recognize that predicting technology's labor market effects is inherently difficult. Current data does not support widespread AI-driven job destruction, and some evidence suggests AI adoption correlates with increased hiring. Avoid endorsing vague policy statements that could commit you to unknown, potentially flawed, "steering" initiatives. Instead, prioritize monitoring real-world economic data and consider that a "do nothing" approach might be more effective than premature, heavy-handed regulation based on speculative fears.

Key insights

The "steering AI" approach to managing economic impacts is flawed due to unpredictable labor market effects and unqualified oversight.

Principles

• Technology's labor market effects are unpredictable at invention.
• Macroeconomic data does not yet show AI-driven job destruction.
• Expert panels often fail to predict technological impacts.

In practice

• Do not endorse vague policy statements.
• Question expert predictions on technology's societal impact.
• Monitor real-world employment data, not just forecasts.

Topics

• AI Policy
• Labor Market Effects
• Economic Transformation
• Technology Regulation
• Daron Acemoglu
• ChatGPT

Best for: Policy Maker, Consultant, Director of AI/ML

Related on AIssential

• An economist's case against the AI jobs-pocalypse — The economic impact of AI on jobs is often overstated, with structural policy failures posing a greater threat than technological displacement.
• Batter Up: AI, Labor, and the Policy Gap Nobody Is Closing — AI's impact on labor is bifurcated: a collaborative tool in some sectors, a driver of mass displacement in others.
• Why AI Actually Won't Take Your Job — The "AI will take your job" narrative is flawed; focus on nuanced impacts and new opportunities.
• The loudest warning about AI and jobs yet — AI presents a growing risk of job displacement, particularly for entry-level roles, while leading AI companies face significant legal challenges over trade secrets.
• Get ready for the plunge — The "Assumption of Indispensability of Labor" (AIL) is being dismantled by AI, causing economic and ontological crises.
• AI Weekly Issue #497: AI's labor war just went global — The global AI-and-work conflict is escalating, driven by worker distrust of unverified productivity claims and regulatory asymmetry.

See Counsel's argued verdicts on the open AI decisions leaders are weighing →

Open in AIssential →

Editorial summary, takeaway, and curation by AIssential. Original article published by Noahpinion.