“Engaging with potential risks of labor market disruption. We have prominently discussed the risks of AI on labor market disruption. We’ve established an Economics Research team that studies AI’s impact on the labor market and regularly publishes real-world data on AI usage via our Anthropic Economic Index. Our Economic Policy Framework presents a guide on potential policy solutions to tackle the issue.”
I don’t think Anthropic considers labor market disruption as a catastrophic for two reasons:
First, as you mentioned, they largely left it out of this report and referred people to other studies. But more importantly, they stated so in the section on risks from automated R&D:
We are strongly incentivized to have our models substitute to the greatest extent possible for both the technical skills and general scientific/strategic judgment (or “research taste”) of all members of technical staff at Anthropic. Technical talent is scarce, and we invest heavily in this area to help improve our models.
Anthropic staff are among the most capable at what they do in the world. A model that’s capable of substituting Anthropic staff member at their jobs would be able to substitute human workers in many other jobs. Sections 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 of the Risk Report talk about how close their models are at being capable enough to doing so.
In section 3.5.1 they show that their model capabilities growth over time is superlinear, despite not meeting their RSP definition of “a doubling over pre-AI-assisted rates of progress.”
Didn’t they discuss it on page 172?
“Engaging with potential risks of labor market disruption. We have prominently discussed the risks of AI on labor market disruption. We’ve established an Economics Research team that studies AI’s impact on the labor market and regularly publishes real-world data on AI usage via our Anthropic Economic Index. Our Economic Policy Framework presents a guide on potential policy solutions to tackle the issue.”
I don’t think Anthropic considers labor market disruption as a catastrophic for two reasons: First, as you mentioned, they largely left it out of this report and referred people to other studies. But more importantly, they stated so in the section on risks from automated R&D:
Anthropic staff are among the most capable at what they do in the world. A model that’s capable of substituting Anthropic staff member at their jobs would be able to substitute human workers in many other jobs. Sections 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 of the Risk Report talk about how close their models are at being capable enough to doing so.
In section 3.5.1 they show that their model capabilities growth over time is superlinear, despite not meeting their RSP definition of “a doubling over pre-AI-assisted rates of progress.”