When formal data and anecdotes about AI's impact disagree, trust the anecdotes. Reports of clients like KPMG demanding lower fees from auditors due to AI are a stronger leading indicator of economic shifts than broad surveys showing no productivity gains. These isolated incidents signal the beginning of a widespread market transformation.
When auditing firm KPMG tried to pay its own auditors less by claiming AI can automate their work, it sent a disastrous public signal. By arguing for the commoditization of its core service, KPMG accidentally announced to the world that its own business model is under direct threat from automation.
Beyond simple productivity gains, AI will eliminate the need for entire service-based transactions, such as paying for basic legal documents or second medical opinions. This substitution of paid services with free AI output can act as a direct deflationary headwind, a counterintuitive effect to the typical AI-fueled growth narrative.
Contrary to the feeling of rapid technological change, economic data shows productivity growth has been extremely low for 50 years. AI is not just another incremental improvement; it's a potential shock to a long-stagnant system, which is crucial context for its impact.
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.
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.
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.
Companies are preemptively slowing hiring for roles they anticipate AI will automate within two years. This "quiet hiring freeze" avoids the cost of hiring, training, and then laying off staff. It is a subtle but powerful leading indicator of labor market disruption, happening long before official unemployment figures reflect the shift.
Marks questions whether companies will use AI-driven cost savings to boost profit margins or if competition will force them into price wars. If the latter occurs, the primary beneficiaries of AI's efficiency will be customers, not shareholders, limiting the technology's impact on corporate profitability.
General-purpose technologies like AI initially suppress measured productivity as firms make unmeasured investments in new workflows and skills. Economist Erik Brynjolfsson argues recent data suggests we are past the trough of this "J-curve" and entering the "harvest phase" where productivity gains accelerate.
Instead of immediate, widespread job cuts, the initial effect of AI on employment is a reduction in hiring for roles like entry-level software engineers. Companies realize AI tools boost existing staff productivity, thus slowing the need for new hires, which acts as a leading indicator of labor shifts.