In his 7th (and now final) question on AI, @DAcemogluMIT asks the question that he and I have been debating for years: will AI create as many jobs as it will replace? We actually agree on some important parts. First, while AI may well transform jobs, this process will not be rapid. In my mind, that gives us time to adjust. Second, in the long term, there may be labour reallocations, and they may impact regions differently. Indeed, back in the financial crisis, Daron gave a series of talks worrying about whether government actions may get in the way of a labour reallocation process he thought was necessary there. Third, if it turns out that AI cannot easily automate jobs, then AI will turn out to be "more pro-Worker", and things will be fine. He reiterated this point in his post: "Of course, things may turn out differently. But if they do, it will be because AI becomes more pro-worker. I see this as unlikely, but it is useful to still consider the scenarios that would bring such an outcome. These are: (1) current AI technologies may become turn out pro-worker than I am anticipating; (2) in the future the industry will automatically and by itself change and focus on pro-worker applications; (3) based on AI-driven science and research, new sectors will be created where there will be need for new workers." The first item is one that @avicgoldfarb and I developed in our paper on O-Ring Automation; that when tasks are highly complementary, automating most of them doesn't eliminate a job or even lower worker productivity. This is something @DarioAmodei has also recently argued. When it comes down to it, Daron and I have the same economic model in mind. Where we differ is the probability weights we are putting on uncertain parameters. I tend to be more optimistic. He tends to be less. There is no resolution to this other than hard evidence, and that doesn't exist quite yet. We are at a stage where any glimmer of hard data is playing an undue role in updating people's beliefs here, and we should be more Bayesian about that. There is another aspect where we differ. Daron is of the opinion that governments can move the needle on pro-Worker AI by, say, reforming capital treatment in the tax code and giving people strong property rights over data. However, I think this is all going to require a ton of innovation and adjustment, with its own uncertainties, and so I am sceptical that governments can really help here. Nonetheless, if there are major disruptions and my optimism is misplaced, I think there will be government responses, but not much in that scenario is going to be fun.