Blame AI or Build With AI? Only One Approach Creates Jobs

We’re failing young Americans. Many of them are struggling to find work. Unemployment among 16- to 24-year-olds topped 10.5% in August. Even among those who do find a job, many of them are settling for lower-paying roles. More than 50% of college grads are underemployed. To make matters worse, the path forward to a more stable, lucrative career is seemingly up in the air. High school grads in their twenties find jobs at nearly the same rate as those with four-year degrees.

We have two options: blame or build. The first involves blaming AI, as if this new technology is entirely to blame for the current economic malaise facing Gen Z. This course of action involves slowing or even stopping AI adoption. For example, there’s so-called robot taxes. The thinking goes that by placing financial penalties on firms that lean into AI, there will be more roles left to Gen Z and workers in general. Then there’s the idea of banning or limiting the use of AI in hiring and firing decisions. Applicants who have struggled to find work suggest that increased use of AI may be partially at fault. Others have called for providing workers with a greater say in whether and to what extent their firm uses AI. This may help firms find ways to integrate AI in a way that augments workers rather than replace them.

So far, this seems to be the choice of action. State legislatures around the country have introduced “blame AI” bills in a variety of forms. From Colorado to New York, officials have proposed and, in some cases, enacted laws that attempt to put the AI genie back in the bottle. Colorado’s AI Act, for example, requires firms that use AI in "consequential decisions," such as in employment matters, to use "reasonable care" to shield consumers from algorithmic discrimination. Compliance with this law entails several procedural hurdles, such as reports on the firm's use of AI and completion of regular impact assessments. National leaders, including Senator Bernie Sanders, have tried to move the entire nation in a similar direction. Sanders recently called for a moratorium on data center construction, which would stymie AI progress.

The problem with this approach? It doesn’t create jobs. It may save some jobs but only on a temporary basis. Tech-forward firms will win the economic future. It’s a tale as old as the steam engine. Factories that redesigned their operations around this new technology thrived as productivity surged and costs fell. The firms that tried to merely integrate the technology on a piecemeal basis--maintaining as much as the status quo as possible--suffered. AI-forward firms are poised to do the same--outcompeting their rivals that insist on operating like it’s 2022 rather than trying to prepare for the economy of 2032.

Rather than blame AI, we need to build: build new educational institutions, new retraining and upskilling programs, and, most importantly, new firms. To start, let’s build schools that assess and reward students for developing skills rather than awarding them grades that have become meaningless to employers. Next, let’s build retraining and upskilling programs that only receive funding if they demonstrate a proven capacity to improve the medium- and long-term economic prospects of participants. Finally, let’s champion the idea of being the best place in the world to start and scale AI-forward businesses. New jobs will not emerge from yesterday’s firms. The jobs of the future will come from companies that are still in the garage or on the bar napkin. Our task is creating pathways for them to go from personal gambles to community-wide opportunities.

Does this sound pollyannish? Hopelessly optimistic? Too pro-tech? The answer is likely “yes” across the board. But that sort of hope is what encourages entrepreneurs, sparks job creation, and gets us beyond playing the blame game.

Kevin Frazier is an AI Innovation and Law Fellow at Texas Law and author of the Appleseed AI substack.