Earlier this month, economists at Anthropic, one of the companies building today's most advanced AI, published something most leaders in our city haven't read yet. It isn't a product announcement. It's a set of scenarios for how artificial intelligence could reshape jobs, wages and growth in the United States between now and 2030.
I read it twice. Then I asked a question I haven't been able to shake: What happens to a city built on human creativity when machines can create?
For Nashville, that isn't an abstract question. It's an economic one, a workforce one and, I'd argue, a leadership one.
What the research actually says
The report, written by a team that includes Stanford economist Charles I. Jones, lays out three possible futures. The authors are careful to say these are not
predictions. They are a map.
In the modest scenario, AI behaves like the internet did in its early years: everywhere, useful and gradual. The economy grows a little faster, and the job market barely flinches.
In the substantial scenario, AI matters more than the internet did. By 2030, the economy is about 8% larger than it would have been without AI. But wages for knowledge workers, the people in management, professional, sales and office jobs, stay essentially flat. Wages in hands-on, in-person work rise. Workers' share of the nation's income drops four points in four years, nearly as much as it fell in the four decades after 1980.
In the extreme scenario, the economy grows faster than at any point in history, and nearly one in five knowledge workers is unemployed.
Two findings stopped me. First, when the researchers surveyed nearly 11,000 Americans, the public's own expectations landed close to that middle scenario. Second, the three paths look almost identical until late 2027. After that, they split.
That's roughly 15 months from now. Most of our organizations plan in fiscal years. This is one budget cycle away.
The question the economists leave for us
Here's the part I keep coming back to. In every scenario, the economy grows. The pie gets bigger. But which institutions could make sure those gains reach the people who bear the cost? The authors say that question is beyond their framework.
In other words, the economists modeled the problem. Leaders have to build the answer.
This isn't just an economics problem. It's a leadership one.
Leadership that sees past the fiscal year
In my work advising executives and organizations, I see strong operators everywhere: Leaders who can manage what is. What's rarer is leadership that can hold the present steady while building for what's next.
That's what I mean by leadership infrastructure. It's the people, practices and investments that let an organization, or a city, adapt before disruption arrives instead of after.
I know what it feels like when the ground shifts. When I left my commercial leadership role at a Fortune 100 to build Career Thrivers, I had to separate who I was from what I did. In my book, “Thrive Through It,” I call that identity grief. If this research is even partly right, a lot of Nashvillians will face it in the next few years, and not by choice.
Which brings me to the arts.
The arts are workforce strategy
When budgets tighten, the arts are often treated as a line item: nice to have, first to cut. The data points in a different direction.
Start with skills.
The World Economic Forum projects that creative thinking, resilience, curiosity and leadership will be among the fastest-rising skills through 2030, right alongside AI. The arts are where people practice those capacities every day.
Then look at value. As AI-generated content floods the market, people are placing a premium on what humans make. In research from Columbia Business School, participants valued art labeled as AI-generated 62% lower than art labeled as human-made.
Then consider wellbeing.
The World Health Organization points to robust evidence that the arts improve health and wellbeing, and recent studies link arts-based programs to less loneliness and better mental health.
When people lose the work that anchored their identity, they need places to reconnect, create and rebuild. The arts are one of the few places built exactly for that.
And in Nashville, the economic case writes itself. Music and entertainment alone carry an estimated $10 billion in annual regional impact, and we have more music jobs per capita than any other U.S. city.
When I say the arts, I mean all of it: fine art and design, dance and theater, craft and makers, the creators building audiences online and, yes, music. What ties them together isn't the medium. It's the human being behind the work.
Let's name the objections
Some will ask why anyone should take economic guidance from an AI company. Fair question. The report names its own limits, and leading outside economists, including MIT's David Autor and Daron Acemoglu, reviewed an early draft. It's a starting point, not a verdict.
Some will say the arts are a luxury when budgets are tight. That's precisely the line-item thinking that leaves cities unprepared.
Some will point out that creative jobs are exposed to AI, too. They are. UNESCO projectsmeaningful income losses for musicians and screen creators by 2028. That's exactly why investment has to be deliberate, not left to market luck.
And some will say these are only scenarios. So is every revenue forecast we've ever approved. Leaders don't wait for certainty; we plan for the probable.
The Music City Leadership Infrastructure Pledge
If you need a reason to act now, the Nashville Symphony's decision to suspend its season this week is a sobering one. Our arts can't depend on the generosity of a few. They need leaders across this city who treat them as infrastructure.
So here's my ask: Pick one. Commit to it publicly before the calendar turns to 2027.
If you're a corporate leader:
- Reinvest a set share of your AI savings in human infrastructure: reskilling, leadership development and partnerships with local artists.
- Redeploy before you reduce. Build pathways into new roles before the pressure arrives.
- Treat the arts as talent strategy, through artist residencies, arts-based leadership development and creative wellness benefits.
If you're a city leader:
- Plan for the arts as workforce and economic development, not discretionary spending.
- Budget for culture on a multiyear horizon, not a single fiscal year.
- Seat artists and arts leaders at the tables where AI and workforce decisions get made.
If you're a community leader:
- Position arts organizations as transition partners for workers navigating change.
- Fund neighborhood-level, participatory arts, not only our marquee institutions.
- Convene philanthropy, faith, business and the arts around a shared plan for human infrastructure.
Music City can lead
I'm a native Nashvillian. I grew up in a city built by people who made things: songs, yes, but also buildings, businesses, quilts, murals, sermons and movements. That's our advantage now.
AI will change how work gets done. It can't replace why we gather, what we make together or who we become in the process.
The question isn't whether we can afford to invest in the arts; it's whether we can afford to keep treating them as a line item instead of the infrastructure they are.
Brittany N. Cole is an executive advisor, keynote speaker and author of “Thrive Through It.” She is the founder and CEO of Career Thrivers and a native Nashvillian. She serves on the Metro Arts Commission and the board of the Arts + Business Council of Greater Nashville. The views here are her own.
This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Nashville should treat arts as infrastructure in the AI era | Opinion
