Connect with us

Tech

AI Is Eliminating Jobs for Younger Workers

Published

on

AI Is Eliminating Jobs for Younger Workers


Economists at Stanford University have found the strongest evidence yet that artificial intelligence is starting to eliminate certain jobs. But the story isn’t that simple: While younger workers are being replaced by AI in some industries, more experienced workers are seeing new opportunities emerge.

Erik Brynjolfsson, a professor at Stanford University, Ruyu Chen, a research scientist, and Bharat Chandar, a postgraduate student, examined data from ADP, the largest payroll provider in the US, from late 2022, when ChatGPT debuted, to mid-2025.

The researchers discovered several strong signals in the data—most notably that the adoption of generative AI coincided with a decrease in job opportunities for younger workers in sectors previously identified as particularly vulnerable to AI-powered automation (think customer service and software development). In these industries, they found a 16 percent decline in employment for workers aged 22 to 25.

The new study reveals a nuanced picture of AI’s impact on labor. While advances in artificial intelligence have often been accompanied by dire predictions about jobs being eliminated—there hasn’t been much data to back it up. Relative unemployment for young graduates, for instance, began dropping around 2009, well before the current AI wave. And areas that might seem vulnerable to AI, such as translation, have actually seen an increase in jobs in recent years.

“It’s always hard to know [what’s happening] if you’re only looking at a particular company or hearing anecdotes,” Brynjolfsson says. “So we wanted to look at it much more systematically.”

By combing through payroll data, the Stanford team found that AI’s impact has more to do with a worker’s experience and expertise than the type of work they do. More experienced employees in industries where generative AI is being adopted were insulated from job displacement, with opportunities either remaining flat or slightly growing. The finding backs up what some software developers previously told me about AI’s impact on their industry—namely that rote, repetitive work, like writing code to connect to an API, has become easier to automate. The Stanford study also indicates that AI is eliminating jobs but not lowering wages, at least so far.

The researchers considered potentially confounding factors including the Covid pandemic, the rise of remote work, and recent tech sector layoffs. They found that AI has an impact even when accounting for these factors.

Brynjolfsson says the study offers a lesson on how to maximize the benefits of AI across the economy. He has long suggested that the government could change the tax system so that it does not reward companies that replace labor with automation. He also suggests AI companies develop systems that prioritize human-machine collaboration.

Brynjolfsson and another Stanford scientist, Andrew Haupt, argued in a paper in June that AI companies should develop new “centaur” AI benchmarks that measure human-AI collaboration, to incentivize more focus on augmentation rather than automation. “I think there’s still a lot of tasks where humans and machines can outperform [AI on its own],” Brynjolfsson says.

Some experts believe that more collaboration between humans and AI could be a feature of the future labor market. Matt Beane, an associate professor at UC Santa Barbara who studies AI-driven automation, says he expects the AI boom to create demand for augmentable work—as managing the output of AI becomes increasingly important. “We’ll automate as much as we can,” Beane says. “But that doesn’t mean there won’t be a growing mountain of augmentable work left for humans.”

AI is advancing quickly though, and Brynjolfsson warns that the impact on younger workers could spread to those with more experience. “What we need to do is create a dashboard early-warning system to help us track this in real time,” he says. “This is a very consequential technology.”


This is an edition of Will Knight’s AI Lab newsletter. Read previous newsletters here.



Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Tech

These Sub-$300 Hearing Aids From Lizn Have a Painful Fit

Published

on

These Sub-0 Hearing Aids From Lizn Have a Painful Fit


Don’t call them hearing aids. They’re hearpieces, intended as a blurring of the lines between hearing aid and earbuds—or “earpieces” in the parlance of Lizn, a Danish operation.

The company was founded in 2015, and it haltingly developed its launch product through the 2010s, only to scrap it in 2020 when, according to Lizn’s history page, the hearing aid/earbud combo idea didn’t work out. But the company is seemingly nothing if not persistent, and four years later, a new Lizn was born. The revamped Hearpieces finally made it to US shores in the last couple of weeks.

Half Domes

Photograph: Chris Null

Lizn Hearpieces are the company’s only product, and their inspiration from the pro audio world is instantly palpable. Out of the box, these look nothing like any other hearing aids on the market, with a bulbous design that, while self-contained within the ear, is far from unobtrusive—particularly if you opt for the graphite or ruby red color scheme. (I received the relatively innocuous sand-hued devices.)

At 4.58 grams per bud, they’re as heavy as they look; within the in-the-ear space, few other models are more weighty, including the Kingwell Melodia and Apple AirPods Pro 3. The units come with four sets of ear tips in different sizes; the default mediums worked well for me.

The bigger issue isn’t how the tip of the device fits into your ear, though; it’s how the rest of the unit does. Lizn Hearpieces need to be delicately twisted into the ear canal so that one edge of the unit fits snugly behind the tragus, filling the concha. My ears may be tighter than others, but I found this no easy feat, as the device is so large that I really had to work at it to wedge it into place. As you might have guessed, over time, this became rather painful, especially because the unit has no hardware controls. All functions are performed by various combinations of taps on the outside of either of the Hearpieces, and the more I smacked the side of my head, the more uncomfortable things got.



Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Two Thinking Machines Lab Cofounders Are Leaving to Rejoin OpenAI

Published

on

Two Thinking Machines Lab Cofounders Are Leaving to Rejoin OpenAI


Thinking Machines cofounders Barret Zoph and Luke Metz are leaving the fledgling AI lab and rejoining OpenAI, the ChatGPT-maker announced on Thursday. OpenAI’s CEO of applications, Fidji Simo, shared the news in a memo to staff Thursday afternoon.

The news was first reported on X by technology reporter Kylie Robison, who wrote that Zoph was fired for “unethical conduct.”

A source close to Thinking Machines said that Zoph had shared confidential company information with competitors. WIRED was unable to verify this information with Zoph, who did not immediately respond to WIRED’s request for comment.

Zoph told Thinking Machines CEO Mira Murati on Monday he was considering leaving, then was fired today, according to the memo from Simo. She goes on to write that OpenAI doesn’t share the same concerns about Zoph as Murati.

The personnel shake-up is a major win for OpenAI, which recently lost its VP of research, Jerry Tworek.

Another Thinking Machines Lab staffer, Sam Schoenholz, is also rejoining OpenAI, the source said.

Zoph and Metz left OpenAI in late 2024 to start Thinking Machines with Murati, who had been the ChatGPT-maker’s chief technology officer.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.



Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Tech Workers Are Condemning ICE Even as Their CEOs Stay Quiet

Published

on

Tech Workers Are Condemning ICE Even as Their CEOs Stay Quiet


Since Donald Trump returned to the White House last January, the biggest names in tech have mostly fallen in line with the new regime, attending dinners with officials, heaping praise upon the administration, presenting the president with lavish gifts, and pleading for Trump’s permission to sell their products to China. It’s been mostly business as usual for Silicon Valley over the past year, even as the administration ignored a wide range of constitutional norms and attempted to slap arbitrary fees on everything from chip exports to worker visas for high-skilled immigrants employed by tech firms.

But after an ICE agent shot and killed an unarmed US citizen, Renee Nicole Good, in broad daylight in Minneapolis last week, a number of tech leaders have begun publicly speaking out about the Trump administration’s tactics. This includes prominent researchers at Google and Anthropic, who have denounced the killing as calloused and immoral. The most wealthy and powerful tech CEOs are still staying silent as ICE floods America’s streets, but now some researchers and engineers working for them have chosen to break rank.

More than 150 tech workers have so far signed a petition asking for their company CEOs to call the White House, demand that ICE leave US cities, and speak out publicly against the agency’s recent violence. Anne Diemer, a human resources consultant and former Stripe employee who organized the petition, says that workers at Meta, Google, Amazon, OpenAI, TikTok, Spotify, Salesforce, Linkedin, and Rippling are among those who have signed. The group plans to make the list public once they reach 200 signatories.

“I think so many tech folks have felt like they can’t speak up,” Diemer told WIRED. “I want tech leaders to call the country’s leaders and condemn ICE’s actions, but even if this helps people find their people and take a small part in fighting fascism, then that’s cool, too.”

Nikhil Thorat, an engineer at Anthropic, said in a lengthy post on X that Good’s killing had “stirred something” in him. “A mother was gunned down in the street by ICE, and the government doesn’t even have the decency to perform a scripted condolence,” he wrote. Thorat added that the moral foundation of modern society is “infected, and is festering,” and the country is living through a “cosplay” of Nazi Germany, a time when people also stayed silent out of fear.

Jonathan Frankle, chief AI scientist at Databricks, added a “+1” to Thorat’s post. Shrisha Radhakrishna, chief technology and chief product officer of real estate platform Opendoor, replied that what happened to Good is “not normal. It’s immoral. The speed at which the administration is moving to dehumanize a mother is terrifying.” Other users who identified themselves as employees at OpenAI and Anthropic also responded in support of Thorat.

Shortly after Good was shot, Jeff Dean, an early Google employee and University of Minnesota graduate who is now the chief scientist at Google DeepMind and Google Research, began re-sharing posts with his 400,000 X followers criticizing the Trump administration’s immigration tactics, including one outlining circumstances in which deadly force isn’t justified for police officers interacting with moving vehicles.

He then weighed in himself. “This is completely not okay, and we can’t become numb to repeated instances of illegal and unconstitutional action by government agencies,” Dean wrote in an X post on January 10. “The recent days have been horrific.” He linked to a video of a teenager—identified as a US citizen—being violently arrested at a Target in Richfield, Minnesota.

In response to US Vice President JD Vance’s assertion on X that Good was trying to run over the ICE agent with her vehicle, Aaron Levie, the CEO of the cloud storage company Box, replied, “Why is he shooting after he’s fully out of harm’s way (2nd and 3rd shot)? Why doesn’t he just move away from the vehicle instead of standing in front of it?” He added a screenshot of a Justice Department webpage outlining best practices for law enforcement officers interacting with suspects in moving vehicles.





Source link

Continue Reading

Trending