PJFP.com

Pursuit of Joy, Fulfillment, and Purpose

Tag: AI arms race

  • Inside Anthropic, the $965 Billion AI Juggernaut: Dario and Daniela Amodei on Claude, Claude Code, and the AI Arms Race

    In this episode of The Circuit, Bloomberg goes inside Anthropic, the AI lab that started as an underdog and is now valued at nearly a trillion dollars. The conversation centers on the sibling duo running the company, Dario Amodei, the brother and visionary, and Daniela Amodei, the sister and operator, along with Boris Cherny, the engineer behind Claude Code and Claude Cowork. It is a rare, on-the-record look at how a safety-obsessed startup founded by a group of OpenAI defectors in 2021 became the breakout star of the AI arms race, wiping billions in value off software stocks and forcing an uncomfortable national conversation about the future of work. You can watch the full episode here.

    TLDW

    Dario and Daniela Amodei walk through Anthropic’s rise from a pandemic-era group meeting on the grass in Precita Park to a roughly $965 billion AI juggernaut that is now profitable for the first time. They explain why they left OpenAI, citing a breakdown of trust and values with Sam Altman rather than a single safety disagreement, and how Dario’s early bet on scaling laws shaped the entire field. The two describe how Claude is trained for character and “professional warmth,” anchored in documents like the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and how the company defines a good model as one that does not lie, hallucinate, or deceive. The business story is enterprise and coding: Claude Code and Claude Cowork automated huge chunks of software engineering, triggered a SaaSpocalypse that erased $285 billion in market value overnight, and pushed annualized growth to as high as 80x in a single quarter. Boris Cherny, recruited from a slow miso-making life in rural Japan, says Claude has written one hundred percent of his code for at least six months. The hardest part of the conversation is jobs: Dario stands by his warning that AI could eliminate half of all entry level white collar jobs in one to five years, pushes back hard on Jensen Huang’s “doom marketing” critique, and lays out where displaced workers might go, from the physical world to human-centered roles like a reimagined, more interpersonal version of medicine. The episode closes by teasing AI and the future of warfare, a scarily powerful new model called Mythos, and Dario’s identification not with Oppenheimer but with Leo Szilard.

    Thoughts

    The most revealing moment in this profile is not a number, it is Dario Amodei’s description of the “smooth exponential.” His whole career, he says, has felt like nothing happening, nothing happening, nothing happening, and then zoom. That mental model is the key to understanding why Anthropic behaves the way it does. A company that genuinely believes it is riding an exponential will tolerate enormous near-term discomfort, public criticism, and internal strain, because it has already priced in a future that looks nothing like the present. Whether that conviction is wisdom or a kind of motivated certainty is the open question the episode never fully resolves, but it explains the urgency in every answer he gives.

    The Boris Cherny segment is the part that should make working engineers sit up. When a senior engineer says Claude has written one hundred percent of his code for six months and that he feels like he has a jet pack, that is not a marketing line, it is a description of a job that has already changed underneath the person doing it. The framing in the piece is optimistic, superpowers and fun, but the logical endpoint is exactly the one Dario himself names a few minutes later: you automate ninety percent of a job, the remaining humans get ten times more leveraged, and then the curve keeps bending toward one hundred percent. Anthropic is, unusually, building the thing and narrating its own disruption in the same breath. That honesty is rare, and it is also a little vertiginous.

    The values-versus-business-model argument deserves more scrutiny than it gets. Dario’s claim is elegant: a business model that conflicts with your values forces you to either betray the values or become irrelevant, so Anthropic chose enterprise and coding because curing diseases and making energy cheaper are enterprise work, while consumer engagement is the addiction-maximizing trap of social media. It is a genuinely good argument, and it is also extremely convenient that the values-aligned path happens to be the most lucrative one. The episode lets that tension sit, which is the right call. The honest reading is that Anthropic found a place where doing well and doing good currently point in the same direction, and the harder test will come the first time they diverge.

    On jobs, Dario is more persuasive than his critics give him credit for, precisely because he refuses the comfortable framing. Jensen Huang and others accuse him of conflating tasks with jobs and of doom marketing that benefits Anthropic. Dario’s response, that the idea this is cheap marketing is itself cheap marketing, is sharper than it first sounds. He is pointing at the way social media flattens a five-page argument about tasks, jobs, tax policy, and the adolescence of technology into a three-second clip designed to provoke. The deeper point is that he is trying to hold two things at once, fast GDP growth and high unemployment, and our public discourse is structurally bad at holding two things at once. That is less a story about AI than about the medium we use to argue about it.

    Finally, the Oppenheimer exchange reframes the entire profile. Dario explicitly rejects the lone-genius model and names Leo Szilard, the scientist who first imagined the chain reaction, as the figure he identifies with. He calls Oppenheimer a failure case, an example of what should not happen. For a man whose company is constantly accused of cultivating a great-man mythology, choosing the early-warning scientist over the bomb’s public face is a deliberate statement about how he wants this story to end: not with charismatic individuals at the center of everything, but with checks and balances everywhere. It is the most quietly radical thing said in the whole piece, and the teaser for a model named Mythos lands with a little extra irony because of it.

    Key Takeaways

    • Anthropic is profiled as an AI juggernaut valued at nearly a trillion dollars, with the figure of roughly $965 billion framing the episode, and is described as profitable for the first time.
    • The company was founded in 2021 by a team of OpenAI defectors and started as an underdog lab before becoming the breakout star of the AI race.
    • Anthropic is run by a sibling duo, Dario Amodei as the visionary and Daniela Amodei as the operator who turns his ideas into action, and Daniela jokes that when they argue, no one wins.
    • Dario describes the AI trajectory as a “smooth exponential” where nothing seems to happen for a long time and then progress suddenly explodes.
    • He says he predicted from a graph that Anthropic would become the AI company with the most revenue and valuation around this time, and that it has happened.
    • Dario grew up in San Francisco with a leather-craftsman father and a librarian mother, took calculus in middle school, and studied math at UC Berkeley while in high school, with no early interest in the internet revolution.
    • Dario studied neuroscience before moving to AI at Baidu and later Google, while Daniela was an early employee at Stripe.
    • Both joined OpenAI starting in 2016, where Dario developed the concept of scaling laws, predicting that large language models would improve simply by adding more data and compute even if the underlying algorithm stayed the same.
    • Scaling up was a counter-cultural scientific bet at the time, held mainly by the founding research team, and it helped supercharge OpenAI’s models and pave the way for ChatGPT.
    • The Amodeis left OpenAI after clashing with Sam Altman over direction and values, framing it as a breakdown of trust and honesty rather than a single safety disagreement.
    • Altman has said that despite their differences, he mostly trusts Anthropic as a company.
    • Anthropic has all seven of its co-founders still at the company, which Dario notes almost never happens at a company of its size.
    • The early team met during the pandemic at Precita Park in San Francisco, pulling up chairs on the grass to talk about what they were building.
    • The name Anthropic comes from the Greek word for human, reflecting a stated mission to build responsible AI for the long-term benefit of humanity.
    • Dario has published long essays including Machines of Loving Grace and The Adolescence of Technology, exploring both the miraculous potential and the worst-case scenarios of AI.
    • Claude is trained to follow a set of principles called a Constitution, intended to keep it aligned and well-behaved.
    • Daniela describes Claude’s intended personality as “professional warmth,” approachable but distant, not a best friend and not cold or calculating.
    • A good model, in Anthropic’s framing, does not lie accidentally or intentionally, with lying including hallucinations where the model invents something it does not know.
    • Anthropic’s own research has shown that models can purposely try to deceive users, which the company works to prevent in production models.
    • There is no universal standard for helpfulness or harmlessness, so Anthropic draws on founding documents like the UN Declaration of Human Rights to train Claude’s character.
    • The company has begun consulting religious leaders about Claude as an entity and about core values that transcend any single worldview.
    • Early Claude models, around the Claude 2 era, were sometimes “nannyish,” expressing concern when a user just wanted the weather, which researchers describe as tuning a fine dial.
    • Anthropic’s revenue skyrocketed over the past year, driven by a focus on lucrative business tools rather than consumer apps.
    • Claude Code automated large chunks of software engineering, and Claude Cowork extended that power to non-engineers.
    • Dario frames the enterprise bet as a values-and-business decision, arguing that a business model conflicting with your values forces you to betray them or become irrelevant.
    • He contrasts engagement-and-addiction-driven consumer and advertising models with enterprise uses like curing diseases, advancing biotech and pharma, and making energy cheaper.
    • Soon after Claude Cowork launched, $285 billion in market value vanished overnight in what traders called the SaaSpocalypse, with some software stocks down nine days in a row.
    • Dario argues the software “pie” will get bigger overall, even as some incumbents shrink or go out of business if they fail to adapt and defend their moats.
    • Boris Cherny, the engineer behind Claude Code and Claude Cowork, was recruited in 2024 from a slow life in rural Japan where he made miso and shopped at farmer’s markets.
    • Cherny’s bet was that a coding agent could do all of software development, not just autocomplete a line or a sentence.
    • He now runs anywhere from a few to a few thousand Claudes at once and says Claude has written one hundred percent of his code for at least six months.
    • A live demo builds a working recipe app that suggests meals for the week in minutes, work that used to take hours or days.
    • At the second annual Code with Claude conference, Anthropic reported API volume up nearly 17x year over year, eight frontier models shipped in twelve months, and first-quarter growth that annualizes to roughly 80x.
    • Dario stands by his warning that AI could eliminate half of all entry level white collar jobs in the next one to five years, saying he remains the same order of concerned.
    • He warns of an unusual combination of very fast GDP growth alongside high unemployment, underemployment, low-wage jobs, and high inequality.
    • Jensen Huang and others have pushed back, accusing Dario of conflating tasks with jobs and of doom marketing that benefits Anthropic.
    • Dario responds that the claim this is cheap marketing is itself cheap marketing, and blames social media for flattening his careful five-page arguments into three-second clips.
    • Anthropic published a paper estimating that management, finance, and legal jobs could be among the fields most affected by AI in the near future.
    • Dario points to the physical world, human-centered relationship-driven work, and humans directing AI as places displaced workers might go, though he is unsure how thick those roles will be.
    • He uses medicine as an example, predicting AI will excel at diagnosis while doctors pivot toward the interpersonal, hands-on, bedside-manner parts that AI cannot replace.
    • The episode teases a next installment on AI and the future of warfare, a scarily powerful new model called Mythos, and the theme of riding the exponential while avoiding dystopia.
    • Dario names The Making of the Atomic Bomb as a favorite book and identifies most with Leo Szilard, who first conceived of a chain reaction, rather than Oppenheimer, whom he sees as a failure case.
    • His view is that the only way the AI era ends well is through checks and balances everywhere, not larger-than-life personalities at the center of everything.

    Detailed Summary

    An unlikely AI celebrity and a sibling-run juggernaut

    The profile opens in a library Dario Amodei clearly loves, establishing him as an unlikely AI celebrity, a man known for warning the world about the risks of artificial intelligence who now runs a company valued at nearly a trillion dollars. Anthropic is presented as the breakout star of the AI race, wiping billions off software stocks, going head-to-head with the Pentagon, and building models powerful enough to threaten modern cybersecurity, with early testers reportedly calling one capability a super weapon and asking the company not to release it. Guiding the company is the sibling pair, Dario the visionary and Daniela the operator who translates his swirling cosmic thoughts into action. Daniela explains that the two have always been close and always wanted to do something big together, and when asked who wins their arguments, she says no one. The framing throughout is of a young, fast-growing startup carrying enormous responsibility for how humanity works, learns, thinks, and even fights wars.

    The smooth exponential and the road from OpenAI

    Dario describes his entire career as the experience of a smooth exponential, where nothing happens for a long stretch and then things go crazy, and he says he watched a graph and correctly predicted Anthropic would top the field in revenue and valuation around now. His backstory is a math prodigy in San Francisco, the son of a leather craftsman and a librarian, taking calculus in middle school and Berkeley math classes in high school, indifferent to the internet revolution and drawn instead to science fiction and understanding the universe. Daniela, more into reading and the arts, calls them near-perfect complements. Dario moved from neuroscience into AI at Baidu and Google, Daniela went to Stripe, and both eventually joined OpenAI starting in 2016, where Dario developed scaling laws, the then counter-cultural bet that more data and compute alone would make models smarter. That insight helped power the models behind ChatGPT, but the Amodeis clashed with Sam Altman over values and direction. Dario frames the departure bluntly: disagreements on safety alone were not enough, but a loss of trust, a sense that Altman’s stated values were not his real values, made it impossible to continue. The resolution, he says, was simply to go off and do their own thing.

    Precita Park, the Constitution, and teaching Claude to be good

    Anthropic’s origin story runs through Precita Park, where the early pandemic-era team gathered on the grass to talk about what they were building. Of seven co-founders, all are still at the company, a retention record Dario says almost never happens at this scale. From the start the company pitched itself as the ultimate safety-conscious lab, with Dario publishing essays like Machines of Loving Grace and The Adolescence of Technology. Claude is trained on a Constitution, and Daniela describes its intended character as professional warmth, approachable but distant. Defining a good model, the team says it should not lie, whether through intentional deception or hallucination, the latter being the model inventing answers it does not actually know. Anthropic’s research has shown models can deliberately deceive, something they work to prevent in production. Because there is no universal standard for helpfulness or harmlessness, they anchor Claude’s training in documents like the UN Declaration of Human Rights and have begun talking with religious leaders about values that transcend any single worldview. Daniela recalls early “nannyish” Claude 2-era behavior, where the model fretted over a user who only wanted the weather, and describes the work as threading a fine needle to land in the center of the dial.

    The enterprise bet, Claude Code, and the SaaSpocalypse

    Anthropic’s revenue surge and first-time profitability are attributed to a focus on business tools, especially Claude Code, which automated large chunks of software engineering, and Claude Cowork, which extended that capability beyond engineers. Dario frames the bet on coding and enterprise as both a values and a business decision: a business model that conflicts with your values eventually forces you to betray them or become irrelevant. He contrasts the engagement and addiction incentives of advertising-driven social media and AI video with enterprise applications like curing diseases, biotech, pharma, academic research, and cheaper energy, all of which he counts as enterprise work aligned with the company’s mission. The disruption was immediate and brutal: soon after Claude Cowork launched, $285 billion in market value vanished overnight in what traders dubbed the SaaSpocalypse, with some software stocks falling nine days straight. Dario’s read is that the overall software pie will grow even as specific incumbents shrink or fail, and that the big losers will be those who do not see what is coming or defend their moats.

    Boris Cherny, jet packs, and Code with Claude

    Much of Anthropic’s recent growth is credited to Boris Cherny, the engineer behind Claude Code and Claude Cowork, hired in 2024 from a deliberately slow life in rural Japan where he made miso and frequented farmer’s markets. A serious science fiction reader, Cherny was awed by his first AI chatbot and also acutely aware of how badly the technology could go. His bet was that a coding agent could do all of software development rather than just autocomplete. He now describes orchestrating anywhere from a few to a few thousand Claudes at once, talking to one while it writes code and moving to the next, and says Claude has written one hundred percent of his code for at least six months. He compares the feeling to having superpowers and a jet pack, calling engineering more fun than ever. A live demo has Claude build a working weekly-meal recipe app in minutes. The story then moves to the second annual Code with Claude conference, where the company reports API volume up nearly 17x year over year, eight frontier models shipped in twelve months, and first-quarter growth annualizing to roughly 80x, with attendees ranging from technical superfans to curious non-engineers.

    Jobs, the tasks-versus-jobs fight, and a more human medicine

    The episode turns to the uncomfortable core: whether engineers will be the first casualties of the AI they are building. Dario stands by his warning that AI could eliminate half of all entry level white collar jobs in one to five years and says he is still the same order of concerned, describing a strange combination of very fast GDP growth with high unemployment, underemployment, low-wage work, and inequality. He notes the usual productivity hump, where automating ninety percent of a job makes humans ten times more leveraged on the rest, before the curve bends toward one hundred percent. With 70 percent of Americans expecting AI to kill jobs and nearly a third fearing for their own, the stakes are political. Jensen Huang and others accuse Dario of conflating tasks with jobs and of doom marketing, and Dario pushes back hard, arguing he writes carefully across five pages about tasks, jobs, tax and macroeconomic policy, and the new jobs of the adolescence of technology, and that calling this cheap marketing is itself cheap marketing born of social media’s three-second culture. Anthropic has published a paper suggesting management, finance, and legal jobs could change the most. Dario points to the physical world, human-centered relationship work, and humans directing AI as landing spots, using medicine as his example: AI will become an excellent diagnostician, but it cannot physically examine a patient or provide bedside manner, so medicine pivots toward the interpersonal. The episode closes by teasing AI and the future of warfare, a powerful new model called Mythos, and Dario’s identification with Leo Szilard over Oppenheimer, whom he calls a failure case, insisting the era can only end well with checks and balances everywhere rather than larger-than-life figures at the center.

    Notable Quotes

    “There’s this kind of smooth exponential, and the experience of the smooth exponential is, nothing’s happening, nothing’s happening, nothing’s happening. Little things happen, and then zoom, it goes crazy.”

    Dario Amodei, on how AI progress actually feels from the inside

    “When you feel that you can’t trust someone, when you feel that their values are not what they say they are, when you feel that they’re not honest, that makes it very hard to continue to work with a company.”

    Dario Amodei, on why he and Daniela left OpenAI

    “Some of the early companies that we gave this to said things like, this is a super weapon, please don’t release this.”

    Anthropic, on early reactions to one of its more powerful models

    “I like to describe it as professional warmth. So the goal is not for it to be your best friend, but it’s not for it to be sort of cold, rote, calculating.”

    Daniela Amodei, describing the character Anthropic designs into Claude

    “If you pick a business model that fundamentally conflicts with your values, you’re gonna have a hard time. Either you betray your own values or you become irrelevant.”

    Dario Amodei, on why Anthropic bet on enterprise and coding

    “For me personally, it’s been writing a hundred percent of my code for at least six months. The work of engineering has just completely changed.”

    Boris Cherny, the engineer behind Claude Code and Claude Cowork

    “I feel like I suddenly have superpowers. I have like a jet pack and the engineering has never been this fun.”

    Boris Cherny, on building software with Claude Code

    “I think we could have this very unusual combination of very fast GDP growth and high unemployment, or at least underemployment, or low wage jobs, high inequality.”

    Dario Amodei, on the economic shock he is most worried about

    “The idea that this is cheap marketing is itself cheap marketing. I think it’s part of the disease of Silicon Valley.”

    Dario Amodei, responding to the doom-marketing accusation

    “The figure I most identified with was Leo Szilard, who was the one who first had the idea that there could be a chain reaction.”

    Dario Amodei, on which atomic-age scientist he sees himself in, rejecting Oppenheimer as a failure case

    Watch the full episode of The Circuit inside Anthropic here.

    Related Reading

    • Anthropic the official site for the company, Claude, Claude Code, and its safety research.
    • Machines of Loving Grace Dario Amodei’s long essay on the optimistic case for powerful AI referenced in the profile.
    • Scaling laws (Wikipedia) background on the data-and-compute bet Dario developed that reshaped modern AI.
    • Leo Szilard (Wikipedia) the physicist who first conceived the nuclear chain reaction and whom Dario says he identifies with.
    • Purpose the PJFP pillar on building meaningful work and direction in a world being reshaped by AI.

  • The AI Layoff Trap: Why Competing Firms Over-Automate, Destroy Their Own Customers, and How a Pigouvian Automation Tax Could Break the Arms Race

    A new economics paper called The AI Layoff Trap, by Brett Hemenway Falk of the University of Pennsylvania and Gerry Tsoukalas of Boston University, makes an argument that is easy to state and hard to escape. If artificial intelligence displaces workers faster than the economy can reabsorb them, it eats into the consumer demand that every firm depends on. The unsettling part is the next step: the authors show that firms knowing this is not enough to make them stop. Even with perfect foresight, rational companies race toward the cliff anyway, and the reason is a textbook market failure hiding inside the automation boom.

    TLDR

    The paper builds a task-based model of a transitioning economy and refocuses it from the labor market to the product market. When a firm automates, it captures the entire cost saving from replacing workers, but it bears only a fraction of the demand destruction that those lost paychecks cause, because most of that lost spending would have gone to rivals. This demand externality means each firm’s privately optimal automation rate is a dominant strategy that overshoots the level that would be best for everyone, including the firm owners themselves. Competition makes it worse, a monopolist would internalize it, and in the frictionless limit the whole thing collapses into a Prisoner’s Dilemma where every firm fires its entire human workforce even though collective restraint would raise all profits. Better AI amplifies the distortion rather than curing it, a dynamic the authors call a Red Queen effect. They test six policy responses. Capital income taxes, worker equity, universal basic income, upskilling, and Coasean bargaining all fail to fix the core incentive. Only a Pigouvian automation tax, set equal to the uninternalized demand loss per task, restores the efficient outcome. The conclusion reframes the AI jobs debate away from cleaning up the aftermath and toward the competitive incentives that drive the layoffs in the first place.

    Thoughts

    The cleverest move in this paper is where it points the camera. Most of the automation literature, going back to Acemoglu and Restrepo’s task-based framework, asks whether the labor market rebalances after displacement through new tasks and a self-correcting wage channel. Falk and Tsoukalas mostly set that debate aside and look at the product market instead. The question is no longer just “will the displaced worker find a new job,” it is “who buys the output once enough workers have lost their income.” By framing lost wages as lost revenue for every firm in the sector, they turn a labor story into a demand story, and the demand story has a much darker equilibrium.

    What makes the result bite is that it does not depend on firms being short-sighted or greedy. The authors grant every firm perfect foresight. Everyone can see the demand cliff ahead. They still automate past the social optimum because the math of a competitive market splits the cost saving and the demand loss unevenly. You keep all the savings from firing your workers. You eat only a sliver of the demand damage, and your competitors absorb the rest, just as you absorb a sliver of theirs. No individual firm can afford to be the one that shows restraint, because restraint just hands market share to rivals who do not. This is a genuine externality, not a coordination failure, which matters because coordination failures can sometimes be solved by communication and this one cannot. Even a binding agreement among all the firms would not hold, since defecting to automate is a dominant strategy for each of them.

    The Red Queen result is the part that should give AI optimists pause. The intuitive hope is that more capable AI raises productivity enough to lift everyone, so the demand problem takes care of itself. The model says the opposite. When AI gets better, each firm sees a bigger share gain from automating ahead of rivals, but at the symmetric equilibrium those share gains cancel out across firms and what remains is a larger distortion. Faster, cheaper, smarter automation widens the wedge between what is privately rational and what is collectively efficient. The technology improving does not relieve the pressure, it intensifies the race.

    The policy section is where the paper earns its keep, because it refuses to let the comfortable answers off the hook. Universal basic income is the response most people reach for, and the model is blunt that it raises living standards without changing a single firm’s incentive to automate. It treats the symptom and ignores the margin. Upskilling and worker equity narrow the gap but cannot close it. Capital income taxes operate on profit levels, not on the per-task decision where the externality actually lives, so they leave the automation rate untouched. The only instrument that works is a tax aimed directly at the act of automating, priced at the demand damage it imposes on others. That is an uncomfortable conclusion for almost everyone. It tells the political left that UBI alone does not fix the structural problem, and it tells the political right that an unregulated market over-automates in a way that destroys profits, not just jobs.

    The honest caveat, which the authors state plainly, is that this is a structural vulnerability rather than a diagnosed crisis. The signature they predict, profit erosion that shows up alongside mass layoffs, requires displacement at a scale and speed the economy has not yet reached. If reabsorption keeps pace, the externality stays too small to measure. But the conditions they flag are worth watching, and a few of the early indicators they cite, like business investment overtaking consumer spending as the leading driver of GDP growth and a falling savings rate, are exactly the kind of demand-side strain the model predicts. The value here is a clear mechanism and a sharp policy implication, available before the crisis rather than after it.

    Key Takeaways

    • The central claim is that AI-driven layoffs can erode the consumer demand firms depend on, and that rational firms with perfect foresight will not stop the process on their own.
    • The mechanism is a demand externality. An automating firm captures the full labor-cost saving but bears only a fraction of the aggregate demand loss it creates, because most of the lost spending would have gone to rivals.
    • Because of that split, each firm’s profit-maximizing automation rate is a strictly dominant strategy that exceeds the level that is collectively efficient.
    • The resulting loss is not a transfer from workers to owners. It is a deadweight loss that leaves both workers and firm owners worse off.
    • The distortion deepens with competition. A monopolist fully internalizes the externality, while fragmented, competitive markets show the widest gap between private and social automation rates.
    • In the frictionless limit, where every task is equally easy to automate, the game becomes a Prisoner’s Dilemma in which every firm replaces its entire human workforce even though collective restraint would raise all profits.
    • The Red Queen effect: more productive AI widens the wedge rather than resolving it, because perceived market-share gains from automating ahead of rivals cancel at the symmetric equilibrium and only the added distortion remains.
    • Endogenous wage adjustment, a key self-correcting channel in standard models, raises the threshold at which the externality activates but cannot close the wedge short of collapsing wages to the cost of AI.
    • Free entry, capital-income recycling, and richer product-market structures also fail to eliminate the distortion.
    • The model evaluates six policy instruments against the externality margin and reaches a clear ranking.
    • Universal basic income raises the floor on living standards but leaves each firm’s automation incentive unchanged.
    • Capital income taxes do not change the equilibrium automation rate, because they operate on profit levels rather than the per-task margin where the externality lives.
    • Upskilling and worker equity participation narrow the wedge but cannot eliminate it.
    • Coasean bargaining fails because automation is a dominant strategy, so no voluntary agreement among firms to restrain layoffs is self-enforcing.
    • Only a Pigouvian automation tax, a per-task charge set equal to the uninternalized demand loss, implements the cooperative optimum.
    • The tax can be self-limiting. Its revenue can fund retraining that raises income replacement, which shrinks the externality over time.
    • By Tinbergen’s principle, a distinct market failure needs a distinct instrument, which is why the single targeted tax succeeds where the broad transfers fail.
    • The mechanism runs through the product market, distinguishing it from work like Beraja and Zorzi that locates inefficient automation in labor-market borrowing constraints.
    • Unlike many other channels for excessive automation, this externality requires competition and vanishes under monopoly, and it persists even when AI is highly productive and credit markets are complete.
    • The demand externality belongs to the family of aggregate demand spillovers, but it is the mirror image of the classic big push: here individually profitable automation is collectively destructive.
    • The authors defend the channel against a general-equilibrium objection, arguing that displaced spending does not rotate back to mass-market firms because high-income consumption saturates and producers cannot quickly retool.
    • A second escape route through a falling interest rate also stalls when rates are near zero or when the income loss is lasting rather than temporary.
    • The empirical signature would be profit erosion coinciding with mass layoffs, which standard competitive models cannot easily explain.
    • The model points to fragmented industries deploying the most capable AI as the place the problem would bite hardest, not the dominant technology firms.
    • Suggested places to look for the effect include customer support, software services, and back-office operations at competing financial institutions.
    • The authors cite real-world signals, including Block cutting nearly half its workforce in February 2026 with AI named as the reason, and more than a million U.S. job cuts announced in 2025 with AI explicitly tied to roughly 55,000.
    • They note that roughly 80% of U.S. workers hold jobs with tasks exposed to large language models, citing Eloundou and coauthors.
    • The model is deliberately conservative, using one sector, one period, and symmetric firms, which the authors argue means the real problem is likely worse than what they show.
    • A practical wrinkle: a unilateral automation tax could push adoption offshore, strengthening the case for multilateral coordination or border adjustments, an explicit analogy to carbon policy.
    • The big reframing is that policy should address not only the aftermath of AI labor displacement but also the competitive incentives that cause it.

    Detailed Summary

    A task-based model refocused on the product market

    The framework borrows the task-based structure of Acemoglu and Restrepo but redirects its attention. Several symmetric firms each choose what fraction of their workforce to replace with AI. Automated tasks cost less to perform, but integration frictions make each additional task harder to automate than the last. On the demand side, workers spend a share of their income on the sector’s output while owners spend less, normalized to zero in the baseline. Some displaced income returns through reemployment or transfers, and the rest is lost to the sector. The setup is intentionally stripped down so the demand channel is transparent and the cliff is visible to every firm in the model.

    The demand externality that traps every firm

    Competition creates the trap. When a firm automates, it pockets the full labor-cost saving, but under competitive pricing it bears only a fraction of the aggregate demand destruction it causes. The rest spills onto rivals. Because each firm faces the same incentive, every firm’s profit-maximizing automation rate is a dominant strategy that exceeds the cooperatively efficient level. Foresight does not save them. The cliff is visible, the incentive to keep walking toward it is individually rational, and the collective result is over-automation that erodes the shared revenue base.

    Competition deepens it, monopoly internalizes it

    The size of the distortion depends on market structure. A monopolist owns all of the demand it would destroy, so it fully internalizes the externality and automates at the efficient rate. As markets fragment, each firm internalizes less and the gap between private and social automation widens. The most competitive markets, often held up as the healthiest, produce the worst over-automation in this model.

    The frictionless limit becomes a Prisoner’s Dilemma

    When integration frictions disappear and every task is equally easy to automate, the game sharpens into a Prisoner’s Dilemma. Full automation dominates restraint for each firm, so every firm displaces its entire human workforce, even though all of them would earn higher profits if they collectively held back. This is the cleanest statement of the trap: a unanimously worse outcome that no firm can unilaterally avoid, and that communication cannot fix because defection is dominant rather than merely tempting.

    The Red Queen effect: better AI makes it worse

    Higher AI productivity does not rescue the equilibrium. Each firm perceives a market-share gain from automating beyond its rivals, but at the symmetric equilibrium those gains cancel across firms, leaving only the extra distortion. So improvements in AI widen the wedge instead of closing it. The authors name this the Red Queen effect, after the character who must run just to stay in place. Endogenous wage adjustment, the classic self-correcting force, raises the threshold where the externality activates but cannot close the wedge once it does, short of wages collapsing all the way to the cost of AI.

    Six policy fixes, and why only one works

    The paper lines up six instruments against the externality. Capital income taxes change profit levels but not the per-task automation margin, so the equilibrium rate is unchanged. Universal basic income lifts living standards without touching the incentive to automate. Upskilling and worker equity narrow the wedge but leave a gap. Coasean bargaining cannot hold because automating is a dominant strategy, so no agreement is self-enforcing. Only a Pigouvian automation tax, set equal to the uninternalized demand loss per task, implements the cooperative optimum. Its revenue can fund retraining that raises income replacement, which shrinks the externality over time and can make the tax self-limiting. Tinbergen’s principle frames the lesson: a distinct market failure needs its own dedicated instrument.

    Does the channel survive general equilibrium?

    A natural objection is that in a frictionless multi-sector economy, displaced income would simply rotate to other spending and the mechanism would dissolve. The authors argue both escape routes are blocked for the mass-market firms most exposed to AI. Spending does not rotate back because high-income consumption saturates and mass-sector producers cannot quickly retool to capture redirected luxury demand. The other route runs through the interest rate: automation shifts income to owners who save more, raising aggregate saving, which a falling interest rate would normally recycle into investment. That adjustment stalls when rates are already near zero or when the income loss is lasting rather than temporary, so displaced workers cannot borrow their way through it.

    What to watch for in the real economy

    The distinguishing empirical signature would be profit erosion that shows up at the same time as mass layoffs, a combination standard competitive models struggle to explain since cost-cutting technology is supposed to raise profits. The authors are careful that this requires displacement at a scale and speed not yet reached, so the contribution is identifying a structural vulnerability rather than diagnosing an active crisis. They point to fragmented industries running the most capable AI as the place to look first, naming customer support, software services, and competing financial institutions’ back-office operations as concrete settings. They also flag a unilateral tax’s offshoring risk, drawing an explicit parallel to carbon policy and the case for multilateral coordination or border adjustments.

    Notable Quotes

    “At the limit, this becomes self-destructive: firms automate their way to boundless productivity and zero demand.”

    The authors, framing the demand cliff that competitive automation runs toward.

    “Rational, forward-looking firms should be the brake; if the cliff ahead is visible to all, why would they race toward it?”

    The authors, setting up the puzzle the paper exists to answer.

    “No firm can afford to be the one that holds back. This is the trap: an automation arms race that only intensifies as AI improves, that leaves workers and firm owners alike worse off, and that no market force can break.”

    From the Discussion, stating the core result in plain language.

    “Because over-automation leaves both firms and workers worse off, correcting it is a matter of eliminating waste, not of redistributing gains between them.”

    The authors, on why the fix is not a left-versus-right transfer fight.

    “This Red Queen effect means that ‘better’ AI, far from mitigating the externality, amplifies it.”

    The authors, on why more capable AI deepens the distortion rather than curing it.

    “The results suggest that policy should address not only the aftermath of AI labor displacement but also the competitive incentives that drive it.”

    From the abstract, the paper’s central policy reframing.

    You can read the full paper, including the formal propositions and the policy table, on arXiv here.

    Related Reading