The anticipated AI productivity boom may already be happening but is invisible in statistics. Current metrics excel at measuring substitution (replacing a worker) but fail to capture quality improvements when AI acts as a complement, making professionals like doctors or bankers better at their jobs. This unmeasured quality boost is a major blind spot.
Related Insights
AI models will quickly automate the majority of expert work, but they will struggle with the final, most complex 25%. For a long time, human expertise will be essential for this 'last mile,' making it the ultimate bottleneck and source of economic value.
The best barometer for AI's enterprise value is not replacing the bottom 5% of workers. A better goal is empowering most employees to become 10x more productive. This reframes the AI conversation from a cost-cutting tool to a massive value-creation engine through human-AI partnership.
Traditional metrics like GDP fail to capture the value of intangibles from the digital economy. Profit margins, which reflect real-world productivity gains from technology, provide a more accurate and immediate measure of its true economic impact.
AI agents that explain equations or decompose forecast changes are seen as complementary technologies. They automate routine tasks, allowing economists to focus on enhancing model quality, building new models, or expanding coverage, rather than reducing headcount. This follows the Jevons paradox, where efficiency gains increase demand.
Contrary to popular belief, AI reduces inequality of output. Research shows that AI provides the biggest performance lift to lower-skilled workers, bringing their output closer to that of experts. This elevates the value of human judgment over rote implementation, narrowing the performance and wage gap between top and bottom performers.
Human intuition is a poor gauge of AI's actual productivity benefits. A study found developers felt significantly sped up by AI coding tools even when objective measurements showed no speed increase. The real value may come from enabling tasks that otherwise wouldn't be attempted, rather than simply accelerating existing workflows.
If AI were perfect, it would simply replace tasks. Because it is imperfect and requires nuanced interaction, it creates demand for skilled professionals who can prompt, verify, and creatively apply it. This turns AI's limitations into a tool that requires and rewards human proficiency.
AI's impact on labor will likely follow a deceptive curve: an initial boost in productivity as it augments human workers, followed by a crash as it masters their domains and replaces them entirely. This creates a false sense of security, delaying necessary policy responses.
Companies struggle to measure AI's return on investment because its value often materializes as individual productivity gains for employees. These personal efficiencies, like finishing work earlier, don't show up on corporate dashboards, creating a mismatch between perceived value and actual impact.
Just as electricity's impact was muted until factory floors were redesigned, AI's productivity gains will be modest if we only use it to replace old tools (e.g., as a better Google). Significant economic impact will only occur when companies fundamentally restructure their operations and workflows to leverage AI's unique capabilities.
