Policymakers are being urged to nudge companies to put checks in place on powerful AI tools. Policymakers are being urged to nudge companies to put checks in place on powerful AI tools. Tech could lose its social acceptance unless it makes people's lives better - and trade unions want an urgent conversation "Who wouldn't want a robot to watch over your kids?" Elon Musk asked Davos delegates last week, as he looked forward with enthusiasm to a world with "more robots than people". Not me, thanks: children need the human connection - the love - that gives life meaning. As he works towards launching SpaceX on to the stock market, in perhaps the biggest ever such share sale, the world's richest man has every incentive to talk big.

Bonus: If you're an subscriber, you can join David and Richard, alongside's editor in chief, Mat Honan, for an exclusive conversation live on Tuesday, December 9 at 1pm ET about this topic. Sign up to be a part here . Any far-reaching new technology is always uneven in its adoption, but few have been more uneven than generative AI. That makes it hard to assess its likely impact on individual businesses, let alone on productivity across the economy as a whole. At one extreme, AI coding assistants have revolutionized the work of software developers. Mark Zuckerberg recently predicted that half of Meta's code would be written by AI within a year.

Autonomous AI agents, capable of complex planning and action, represent a significant technological evolution beyond current generative tools. As these systems become integrated into political and economic life, their distribution and capabilities will be highly consequential. This paper introduces and explores "agentic inequality" - the potential disparities in power, opportunity, and outcomes stemming from differential access to, and capabilities of, AI agents. We analyse the dual potential of this technology, exploring how agents could both exacerbate existing divides and, under the right conditions, serve as a powerful equalising force. To this end, the paper makes three primary contributions. First, it establishes an analytical framework by delineating the three core dimensions through which this inequality can manifest: disparities in the availability, quality, and quantity of agents. Second, it argues that agentic inequality is distinct from prior technological divides. Unlike tools that primarily augment human abilities, agents act as autonomous delegates, creating novel power asymmetries through scalable goal delegation and direct agent-to-agent competition that are poised to reshape outcomes across economic and socio-political spheres. Finally, it provides a systematic analysis of the technical and socioeconomic drivers - from model release strategies to market incentives - that will shape the distribution of agentic power, concluding with a research agenda for navigating the complex governance challenges ahead.

Economists at Stanford University have found the strongest evidence yet that artificial intelligence is starting to eliminate certain jobs. But the story isn't that simple: While younger workers are being replaced by AI in some industries, more experienced workers are seeing new opportunities emerge. Erik Brynjolfsson, a professor at Stanford University, Ruyu Chen, a research scientist, and Bharat Chandar, a postgraduate student, examined data from ADP, the largest payroll provider in the US, from late 2022, when ChatGPT debuted, to mid-2025. The researchers discovered several strong signals in the data--most notably that the adoption of generative AI coincided with a decrease in job opportunities for younger workers in sectors previously identified as particularly vulnerable to AI-powered automation (think customer service and software development). In these industries, they found a 16 percent decline in employment for workers aged 22 to 25.

I described a 1999 result by Koutsoupias and Papadimitriou, regarding multi-agent systems. They studied systems in which non-cooperative agents share a common resource and proposed the ratio between the worst possible Nash equilibrium and the social optimum as a measure of the effectiveness of the system. This ratio has become known as the "Price of Anarchy," as it measures how far from optimal such non-cooperative systems can be. They showed that the price of anarchy could be arbitrarily high, depending on the complexity of the system. The Price-of-Anarchy concept has later been extended to other types of equilibria--for example, Pareto-Optimal Equilibria.b

Brynjolfsson, along with researchers Danielle Li, and Lindsey Raymond, authored a study in which generative AI was used by over 5,000 customer support agents at a call center, and found that AI tools boosted workers productivity, reduced attrition, and were especially helpful for early-career workers. Through machine learning, the generative AI systems were able to use pattern recognition to identify successes and failures in customer service approaches. "It listened in on a whole bunch of transcripts and calls, and could see the patterns that turned out well the ones that didn't turn out well," says Brynjolfsson. "It captured that tacit knowledge and passed it on to the less experienced workers." Brynjolfsson said the AI system was able to recommend specific features to solve a customer's problems, or a tone of voice or phrasing that might work better. "Maybe no human had ever written down those rules before but the AI system, by looking at literally millions of transcripts, was able to pick up on these patterns." AI tools are likely going to impact tasks that are "routine, predictable, or standardized," according to Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, a professor of business psychology and author of I, Human: AI, Automation, and the Quest to Reclaim What Makes Us Unique. Though it might be tempting to brush off the sudden rise of AI tools as just a fad, Chamorro-Premuzic says it's important to become as familiar as possible with the tools, as they are likely to become ubiquitous. "These are tools that everybody will use, and if you're the only person not even trying it out or not using it, you might actually suffer," he says, comparing such resistance to deciding not to use Google's search engine.

Erik Brynjolfsson is in great demand. The US professor whose research focuses on the relationship between digital tech and human productivity is nearing the end of a European speaking tour that's lasted nearly a month. Speaking via Zoom as he prepares for his imminent lecture in Oxford, the director of the Digital Economy Lab at the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered AI is enthused by recent "seminal breakthroughs" in the field. Brynjolfsson's tour – which has included appearances at the World Economic Forum in Davos and the Institute for the Future of Work in London – is neatly timed, because the recent arrival of ChatGPT on the scene has been capturing human minds, if not yet hearts. The large-scale language model, fed 300 billion words by developer OpenAI, caused a sensation with its powerful capabilities, attracting 1 million users within five days of its release in late November 2022.

As companies such as Alphabet (GOOG, GOOGL) and Microsoft (MSFT) tussle to make the best artificial intelligence technology, one expert questioned whether they are going about it in the right way. "Alan Turing famously proposed that the test for intelligence, what we later called the Turing Test, was'how similar can an AI be to a human?' Trying to mimic humans has been kind of a goal of a lot of computer scientists ever since," Stanford Digital Economy Lab Director Erik Brynjolfsson said on Yahoo Finance Live (video above). "Can we fool humans so you can't tell the difference?" he continued. "I think it's a very evocative goal, but it's also a trap. The reason it's a trap is that if we make AI that mimics humans, it actually destroys the value of human labor and it leads to more concentration of wealth and power."

ChatGPT is artificial intelligence that writes for you, any kind of writing you like – letters, song lyrics, research papers, recipes, therapy sessions, poems, essays, outlines, even software code. And despite its clunky name (GPT stands for Generative Pre-trained Transformer), within five days of its launch, more than a million people were using it. How easy is it to use? Try typing in, "Write a limerick about the effect of AI on humanity." Or how about, "Tell the Goldilocks story in the style of the King James Bible." Microsoft has announced it will build the program into Microsoft Word. The first books written by ChatGPT have already been published.

A number of big themes emerged from the World Economic Forum in the Swiss resort Davos. Here are five of most pressing questions that came to dominate this year's gathering of the global elite. Donald Trump's trade war with China – continued by his successor Joe Biden – has left relations between east and west at rock bottom. But with Covid and trade tensions halving Chinese growth last year to just 3% and western businesses such as Apple moving business out of the world's second-biggest economy, Beijing has hinted it may adopt a less-hostile approach. Vice-premier Liu He appeared on the main stage at Davos to assure foreign investors that after three years of Covid disruption, it was open for business.