Cited by 17Labor market dynamics and wage inequalityDigital Economy and Work TransformationEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Building Pro-Worker Artificial Intelligence

Open access
Acemoglu, Daron, Autor, David, Johnson, Simon·2026·National Bureau of Economic Research

Abstract

This paper defines pro-worker technologies, including Artificial Intelligence, as technologies that make human skills and expertise more valuable by expanding worker capabilities. Our conceptual framework distinguishes among five categories of technological change: labor-augmenting, capital-augmenting, automating, expertise-leveling, and new task-creating. Only the last category is unambiguously pro-worker, generating demand for novel human expertise rather than commodifying it. We illustrate these distinctions through hypothetical and real-world examples spanning aviation maintenance, electrical services, custodial work, education, patent examination, and gig delivery. While AI’s capacity to automate work is substantial, we argue that its potential to serve as a collaborator, by extending human judgment, enabling new tasks, and accelerating skill acquisition, is equally transformative and currently underexploited. We identify market failures, including misaligned firm and developer incentives, path dependence, and a pervasive pro-automation ideology, that may lead to underinvestment in pro-worker AI. We consider nine policy directions that would change incentives, including targeted investments in health care and education, tax code reform, antitrust enforcement, and intellectual property protections for worker expertise. Institutional subscribers to the NBER working paper series, and residents of developing countries may download this paper without additional charge at www.nber.org.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3386/w34854

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Acemoglu, Autor, and Johnson (2026) identify early-career workers in affected occupations as the most vulnerable group, based on the notion that AI cannot yet substitute for experience accumulated by older workers.

    “Acemoglu, Autor, and Johnson (2026) identify early-career workers in affected occupations as the most vulnerable group, based on the notion that artificial intelligence cannot yet substitute for experience accumulated by older workers.”

    From Labor Market Consequences of Generative AI: Early Evidence from Norway (2026) · cites this paper as Acemoglu et al., 2026

    Section 4.2.5 (p. 18) says expertise-leveling technologies can increase the value of less-expert workers while reducing the scarcity value of workers who previously performed those tasks. The summary table (p. 13) states, “Entrants benefit. Incumbent expertise potentially devalued.” That is contrary to the claimed rationale that accumulated experience protects older workers and makes early-career workers the most vulnerable. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Moses Abramovitz and Paul David. American macroeconomic growth in the era of knowledge-based progress: The long-run perspective. In Robert E. Gallman and Stanley L. Engerman, editors, The Cambridge Economic History of the United States: Volume 3: The Twentieth Century , volume 3 of Cambridge Economic History of the United States . Cambridge University Press, 2000. doi: 10.1017/CHOL9780521553087.002. · DOI
  2. Daron Acemoglu. AI's future doesn't have to be dystopian. Boston Review , 2021. URL https:
  3. Daron Acemoglu. What happened to liberal democracy? Remaking a politics of shared prosperity . Penguin Random House, 2026.
  4. Daron Acemoglu and David Autor. Skills, tasks and technologies: Implications for employment and earnings. In David Card and Orley Ashenfelter, editors, Handbook of Labor Economics , volume 4. Elsevier, 2011. doi: 10.1016/S0169-7218(11)02410-5. · DOI · Paper page
  5. Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson. Learning from Ricardo and Thompson: Machinery and labor in the early Industrial Revolution and in the age of Artificial Intelligence. Annual Review of Economics , 16(1):597-621, 2024. doi: 10.1146/annurev-economics-091823-025129. · DOI
  6. Daron Acemoglu and Pascual Restrepo. The race between man and machine: Implications of technology for growth, factor shares, and employment. American Economic Review , 108(6):1488-1542, 2018. doi: 10.1257/aer.20160696. · DOI · Paper page
  7. Daron Acemoglu and Pascual Restrepo. Automation and new tasks: How technology displaces and reinstates labor. Journal of Economic Perspectives , 33(2):3-30, 2019. doi: 10.1257/jep.33.2.3. · DOI · Paper page
  8. Daron Acemoglu and Pascual Restrepo. Robots and jobs: Evidence from U.S. labor markets. Journal of Political Economy , 128(6):2188-2244, 2020. doi: 10.1086/705716. · DOI · Paper page
  9. Daron Acemoglu and Pascual Restrepo. Tasks, automation, and the rise in U.S. wage inequality. Econometrica , 90(5):1973-2016, 2022. doi: 10.3982/ECTA19815. · DOI · Paper page
  10. Daron Acemoglu and Pascual Restrepo. Automation and rent dissipation: Implications for wages, inequality, and productivity. The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 2026. doi: 10.1093/qje/qjag006. · DOI
  11. Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson. The narrow corridor: States, societies, and the fate of liberty . Penguin Press, 2019. URL https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/ books/555400/the-narrow-corridor-by-daron-acemoglu-and-james-a-robinson/ .

Authors
Acemoglu, D., Autor, D., & Johnson, S.
Affiliations
National Bureau of Economic Research (US)
Venue
National Bureau of Economic Research
Published
2026-02
OpenAlex
W7131098001
Cited by
17
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 17
Type
report
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • National Bureau of Economic Research (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Smith Richardson Foundation
  • Sid W. Richardson Foundation
  • Australian Government
  • NOMIS Stiftung
  • National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Labor market dynamics and wage inequality
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Economy and Work Transformation
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
automation, task creation, soft skills, skill acquisition, market failure, path dependence, AI policy, antitrust enforcement, intellectual property protection, tax code reform, education investment, aircraft maintenance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review