“We are entering a rite of passage, both turbulent and inevitable, which will test who we are as a species,” warned Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei in his essay The Adolescence of Technology. He paints a sobering
picture of how artificial intelligence (AI) could reshape the job market and fast.
“AI will disrupt 50% of entry-level white-collar jobs over 1–5 years, while also thinking we may have AI that is more capable than everyone in only 1–2 years,” Amodei wrote.
Amodei drew a parallel to the Industrial Revolution and explained how technology once helped humans work more efficiently: “Machines, such as upgraded plows, enabled human farmers to be more efficient… This improved the productivity of farmers, which increased their wages.” But he warned that AI may not follow the same path: “It’s possible things will go roughly the same way with AI, but I would bet pretty strongly against it.”
Why AI Is Different
He identifies several reasons AI is unique:
Speed Of Change: Amodie pointed out that in just two years, AI went from “barely being able to complete a single line of code, to writing all or almost all of the code for some people.”
“Soon, they may do the entire task of a software engineer end to end. It is hard for people to adapt to this pace of change, both to the changes in how a given job works and in the need to switch to new jobs. Even legendary programmers are increasingly describing themselves as “behind”,” he noted.
Cognitive Breadth: Amodei further mentioned that AI can perform a very wide range of “human cognitive abilities—perhaps all of them.” He noted that unlike past technologies, this growing change will make it “harder for people to switch easily from jobs that are displaced to similar jobs that they would be a good fit for.” “Another way to say it is that AI isn’t a substitute for specific human jobs but rather a general labor substitute for humans,” he added.
Advancing Up “The Ability Ladder”: According to the CEO, AI is progressing from simple tasks to complex ones, now matching and surpassing strong human performance. “I am concerned that they (people) could form an unemployed or very-low-wage “underclass”,” he added.
Gap-Filling Abilities: He further said that AI’s weaknesses are rapidly addressed as models improve. “AI, in addition to being a rapidly advancing technology, is also a rapidly adapting technology,” Amodie noted.
Addressing Common Skepticism About AI And Jobs
Amodei also addressed the common points of skepticism about AI’s impact on jobs.
Slow Economic Diffusion: Some argue that AI adoption will be slow which will give humans more time to adjust. Amodei acknowledges this: “Slow diffusion of technology is definitely real—I talk to people from a wide variety of enterprises, and there are places
where the adoption of AI will take years.” That’s why he predicts “50% of entry-level white-collar jobs being disrupted is 1–5 years,” even though powerful AI could technically handle most jobs in much less time. But he cautions that diffusion may not be as slow as expected. “Enterprise AI adoption is growing at rates much faster than any previous technology, largely on the pure strength of the technology itself,” he noted.
Shifting To Physical Work: Some suggest humans could move to physical labour to escape cognitive automation. Amodei questions this as he mentioned, “a lot of physical labour is already being done by machines… or will soon be done by machines (e.g., driving).” Even if AI initially focuses on cognitive tasks, he warned the disruption could still be “unprecedentedly large and rapid.”
The Human Touch: Could some jobs survive because they require human empathy or personal interaction? Amodei remains skeptical. He shares a personal example: when his sister struggled with medical issues during pregnancy, she found AI (Claude) had “a better bedside manner (as well as succeeding better at diagnosing the problem)” than human providers. While some tasks may still need humans, he stresses, “we’re talking about finding work for nearly everyone in the labor market.”
Comparative Advantage: Some argue that humans will still have roles due to relative skill differences. Amodei points out a key limitation: “If AIs are literally thousands of times more productive than humans… human wages may be very low, even if they technically have something to offer.”
He concluded that while the labour market may eventually adapt, the “short-term shock will be unprecedented in size.”
