Amid mounting concerns that AI technology could lead to significant job displacement, artificial intelligence company Anthropic has launched a new initiative aimed at tracking and addressing AI’s broader economic implications.
Named the Economic Futures Program, Anthropic’s new initiative will support comprehensive research into AI’s effects on the job market, productivity, and economic value creation. The program also aims to develop informed policy proposals to proactively manage the economic shifts driven by rapid advancements in AI.
“Right now, there’s a growing demand for clarity around AI’s real-world economic consequences, both positive and negative,” explained Sarah Heck, Anthropic’s head of policy programs and partnerships. “It’s vital that we ground these discussions with evidence-based insights rather than assumptions or predetermined outcomes.”
Anthropic’s CEO Dario Amodei recently projected a potentially stark outlook on AI-driven disruptions, estimating that the technology could eliminate as many as half of entry-level white-collar positions and boost unemployment rates towards 20% within the next one to five years.
Asked if addressing and mitigating potential job losses was a key objective of the Economic Futures Program, Heck responded cautiously, emphasizing the importance of understanding the complexity of AI-driven change. “Our primary goal at this stage is really to gain accurate insights into what’s actually happening,” Heck said. “If job losses do occur, we’ll certainly need diverse expertise around the table to explore responses and mitigations. And if the economic benefits—such as dramatic GDP growth—are realized, we similarly want policy makers actively engaged in deciding how best to harness those gains. This is not a simple yes-or-no question.”
The new initiative builds on Anthropic’s earlier project—the Economic Index—which began in February by publishing anonymized workforce and economic data designed to provide insights on AI’s evolving impacts. Unlike traditional corporate datasets hidden from public view, the Economic Index aims to offer open, transparent information to better inform public dialogue around AI.
Under the Economic Futures Program, Anthropic is launching grant offerings of up to $50,000 aimed at researchers interested in empirically tracking AI’s economic implications. The grants, open to individuals, academic teams, or independent researchers, are structured to facilitate rapid-turnaround projects completed within six months and aren’t necessarily required to undergo peer review.
The initiative also includes Anthropic-hosted symposia in the fall in both Washington, D.C. and Europe, where the company is encouraging participants from diverse intellectual backgrounds and policy fields to present evidence-based policy proposals that can support effective planning and adaptation. These events will look not only at immediate labor market disruptions but also at deeper economic shifts, transitions in skill demand, and emerging new sectors of employment.
Anthropic is additionally looking at broadening its field of inquiry beyond labor markets—including potential impacts on fiscal policy and overall value creation models as more enterprises integrate AI technologies. “Our intention is to significantly broaden the scope of study,” Heck explained. “We want researchers and policymakers thinking about how new workflows might evolve, how entirely new roles might appear, and the ways in which certain skillsets emerge or lose their relevance.”
Rival AI firm OpenAI launched a related but distinct initiative earlier this year, called the Economic Blueprint. While OpenAI’s approach prominently centers around promoting AI infrastructure, advancing educational efforts to foster widespread adoption, and creating designated “AI economic zones,” it does not explicitly address the job losses that industry observers foresee.
Anthropic’s deliberate focus on researching and potentially mitigating adverse impacts of AI tech reflects a gradual shift among tech industry leaders to engage more directly in addressing workforce disruptions their own products may generate—a move that seems driven by both genuine responsibility and mounting reputational pressures within the industry.
