Goldman Sachs Research released a new analysis in August 2025 examining AI’s impact on global employment, finding that AI-related innovation will cause near-term job displacement while simultaneously creating new opportunities elsewhere. The research suggests economists expect generative AI to lift labor productivity by approximately 15% at full adoption while nudging unemployment up by about 0.5 percentage points.

Behind the news:

This latest Goldman research builds on their earlier 2023 analysis that predicted generative AI could raise global GDP by 7%. The updated findings align with broader industry research from McKinsey suggesting that by 2030, activities accounting for up to 30% of hours currently worked across the US economy could be automated. However, Goldman’s research takes a more nuanced view than some predictions of mass unemployment, emphasizing historical patterns where new opportunities in emerging sectors have ultimately offset jobs displaced by automation.

The Goldman findings suggest we’re entering a transition period rather than facing an employment apocalypse.

Link to study

The current narrative of AI eating up college graduate entry-level jobs will have interesting and lasting ramifications if true. But before we get there, let’s back up for a second. Here is where we (seemingly) are at:

George Arison, CEO of Grindr: “Companies are ‘going to need less and less people at the bottom.’” […] Matt Sigelman, President of Burning Glass Institute: “This is a more tectonic shift in the way employers are hiring. Employers are significantly more likely to be letting go of their workers at the entry level—and in many cases are stepping up their hiring of more experienced professionals.” […] Ford CEO Jim Farley: Stated he “expects AI will replace half of the white-collar workforce in the U.S.”

And it’s not just CEOs talking about this shift:

Jadin Tate, University at Albany graduate: Recounted his mentor’s warning that his chosen field is being “taken over by AI” and “may not exist in five years.” […] Arjun Dabir, student at University of California, Irvine, on intern work: “That task is no longer necessary. You don’t need to hire someone to do it.”

Which is all well and good for the hiring companies (and, of course, terrible for college grads) – but just like China’s infamous “one child per family”-policy, it will bite you in the tail down the line. You might not need the entry-level worker anymore – but how does someone progress to a mid- to high-level worker if they never had the chance to, well, start somewhere?

Chris Ernst, Chief Learning Officer at Workday: “Genuine learning, growth, adaptation—it comes from doing the hard work. It’s those moments of challenge, of hardship—that’s the crucible where people grow, they change, they learn most profoundly.”

Time will tell.

Link to article in WSJ.

Microsoft’s WorkLab team is out with a new report on what our workplace looks like mid-2025 – and the results are ugly:

Nearly half of employees (48%) – and more than half of leaders (52%) – say their work feels chaotic and fragmented. […]

Half (50%) of all meetings take place between 9–11 am and 1–3 pm—precisely when, as research shows, many people have a natural productivity spike in their day. […]

On average, employees using Microsoft 365 are interrupted every 2 minutes by a meeting, email, or notification.

And is goes on and on… Particularly hilarious (and sad is this):

In the final 10 minutes before a meeting, PowerPoint edits spike 122% – the digital equivalent of cramming before an exam.

The report offers some positive outlook though:

The future of work won't be defined by how much drudgery we automate, but by what we choose to fundamentally reimagine. […] The most effective organizations know this—and act on it. Frontier Firms are putting the Pareto Principle into practice, focusing on the 20% of work that delivers 80% of the outcomes.

Link to report.

Is AI killing jobs or not? The (seemingly) eternal question, which gets answered with yes, no, and “it depends” in equal measures, just received its latest update. In a recent study by Revelio Labs, a workforce data company, the data points to a world where AI already has a direct impact on hiring:

In short, jobs that AI can perform are disappearing from job boards faster than those that AI can't handle. […] Since OpenAI released ChatGPT in 2022... the hiring downturn has been steeper for high-exposure roles (31%) than for low-exposure roles (25%).

The important bit here is the distinction between high- and low-exposure roles – or the ability of an AI to do your job.

Link to study.

On the heels of my last post about Google co-founder Sergey Brin’s rather questionable approach to using AI to replace managers (or, at least, replace a lot of what they do), here is new research on the impact AI is having on the workplace.

From the study “The Dark Side of Artificial Intelligence Adoption: Linking Artificial Intelligence Adoption to Employee Depression via Psychological Safety and Ethical Leadership” published in Nature:

“While the adoption of AI brings numerous benefits, it also introduces negative aspects that may adversely affect employee well-being, including psychological distress and depression.”

The study goes on to say that

“With AI adoption, there is a real risk that employees will perceive threats to crucial resources like job stability, independence in their work, and professional competencies.”

In summary (and very much contrary to Mr. Brin’s approach):

“With the continuous advancement and integration of AI technology in our workplaces, it is imperative for organizations and leaders to prioritize the welfare of their employees, foster a supportive and inclusive working environment, and embrace an ethical approach that prioritizes people when incorporating AI.”

Link to study.

Benn Stancil’s commentary about the changing nature of software development (vibe coding is all the rage now, kids!) draws an important conclusion: If developing software (aka writing code) becomes more and more democratized, what stronghold do places like Silicon Valley have on innovation?

Taking this thought a step further – if the value is less and less in the software development process and rather in domain expertise in the problem space, will we see a geographic shift of innovation ecosystems toward their respective client spaces?

Just as it's becoming harder to out-write an LLM, it's becoming harder to out-develop one too. And if experts can prompt their way to a product just as easily as those of us in Silicon Valley can, what winning talent are we left with?

Link to article.

Despite this blog post by Will Larson being written from the perspective of, and for, software developers, his insights into the impact of AI on careers (both from the perspective of an individual as well as a company) ring true across the spectrum:

The technology transition to Foundational models / LLMs as a core product and development tool is causing many senior leaders’ hard-earned playbooks to be invalidated. Many companies that were stable, durable market leaders are now in tenuous positions because foundational models threaten to erode their advantage. Whether or not their advantage is truly eroded is uncertain, but it is clear that usefully adopting foundational models into a product requires more than simply shoving an OpenAI/Anthropic API call in somewhere.

In our sessions, we often open with the observation that “we are trying to solve new world problems with old world thinking.” In Will’s words, our playbooks become rapidly obsolete, and in many cases, we haven’t developed new ones quite yet.

Sitting out this transition, when we are relearning how to develop software, feels like a high risk proposition. Your well-honed skills in team development are already devalued today relative to three years ago, and now your other skills are at risk of being devalued as well.

And as this world is moving at a frenzied pace, the above seems to be doubly true. As someone else recently wrote: Now might be the worst time to take a sabbatical.

Link to blog post.

Remember the promise of MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses)?

We are 25 years into the MOOC era. We have near unlimited access to the world’s best teachers on YouTube, and yet our education system isn’t producing independent thinkers. How is this possible?

In this account from an Indian company about their experience hiring people – and their struggles finding qualified personnel (the company is in the learning space nonetheless) – it provides both a fascinating look at the job/applicant market and the struggles with new approaches to learning.

Geoffrey Huntley on the impact of AI on coding tasks and jobs (in his case).

I seriously can't see a path forward where the majority of software engineers are doing artisanal hand-crafted commits by as soon as the end of 2026. If you are a software engineer and were considering taking a gap year/holiday this year it would be an incredibly bad decision/time to do it.

It’s a well-put-together piece of thought – even if you are not a developer (maybe even more so, unless your job solely relies on your manual labor skills). Highly recommended to read and reflect upon.

This is highly likely to be true (and exciting – at least for some of us):

If you’re a high agency person, there’s never been a better time to be alive…

Link to article.