Labor economist Catherine Ann Edwards argues that the real danger is not an AI apocalypse but a government safety net too weak to handle ordinary job loss, recessions and worker disempowerment. As chip workers at Samsung win huge bonuses through union pressure, she makes the case for stronger unemployment insurance, labor power and tax policy instead of waiting for a technological crisis.

Anthropic’s Boris Cherny argues that AI coding tools are already blurring the boundaries between engineer, manager and designer, even as their labor-market effects remain unsettled. Around that debate, the conversation traces how companies are pushing workers to adopt AI, rewarding token usage unevenly and fumbling toward a broader social response to automation.

A Google executive and longtime labor economist argues that AI is more likely to reshape work than erase it, even as new forecasting data suggests a small but meaningful chance of far more severe disruption. The conversation pits Silicon Valley’s job-loss rhetoric against a slower, messier reality in which tasks automate faster than occupations, and policy failures may matter more than the technology itself.

Casey Newton and Ella Marciano open a new Platformer series with survey data showing AI adoption is highest among managers and top earners, while junior workers and administrative staff remain more skeptical of its benefits. A later conversation with Box CEO Aaron Levie argues that enterprise software will be remade by agents, but that most jobs will shift rather than disappear as human work moves to the harder, higher-value last mile.