Or: the dog is not barking in the nighttime, for there is no(t yet any) AI jobs shock, only executives spooked by the possibility of a future one. From the missing jobs shock to the destruction wrought by Trump-Musk DOGE to the management utopian philosophy of Peter Drucker:
I see this morning that Torsten Slok reads it how I read it: We are not experiencing an “AI Jobs Shock”. At most, we are experiencing a reduction in hiring by executives who do not understand the technology but who have absorbed vibes that there will be a real-soon-now “AI Jobs Shock”. Where do these vibes come from? From a combination of grifters seeking money, and madmen hearing the voices in their heads of a forthcoming Digital God:
Torsten Slok: Where Is the AI Jobs Shock? Not in India or the Philippines : ‘If AI were displacing white-collar work at scale, you would expect to see it first in the Philippines and India, where business process outsourcing (call centers, IT support, back-office processing) accounts for a large share of employment. Instead, the unemployment rate in both countries has continued to trend lower, with the Philippines near 5% and India near 6%, both well below their 2021 levels. The bottom line is that the hard data still show no signs that AI is generating job losses in the economies and industries most exposed to it:
Now do not get me wrong. That the real effects are small in the context of the global economy does not mean that they are not there. But they are not yet large. And, for the most part, they appear to be consequences brought forward in time from a belief in a future in which there will be technology- and efficiency-driven substitution for labor.
The Digital God-maddened and the grifters are having real effects, but they are almost all destructive with respect to institutions and firms that have been effected. The gullible have bought into and the malevolent have either bought into or pretend to have bought into these narratives. They have taken actions that have shredded institutions and capabilities that they are supposed to be managing and nurturing.
Look at this, for example:
Henry Farrell (2025): Silicon Valley’s Reading List Reveals Its Political Ambitions : ‘DOGE’s grand effort to cut government down to size is the latest manifestation of a longstanding Silicon Valley dream: to remake politics in its image…. DOGE’s grand effort to cut government down to size is the newest iteration of an epic narrative of change. Musk, a heroic entrepreneur, will surely make history as his tiny team of engineers cuts the government Leviathan down to size. One DOGE recruiter framed the challenge as “a historic opportunity to build an efficient government, and to cut the federal budget by 1/3.” When a small team remakes government wholesale, the outcome will surely be simpler, cheaper and more effective. That, after all, fits with the story that Silicon Valley disruptors tell themselves….
Like the Renaissance engineers who wanted to raze squalid and inefficient cities to start anew, DOGE proposes to flense away the complexities of government in a leap of faith that AI will do it all better. If the engineers were not thoroughly ignorant of the structures they are demolishing, they might hesitate and lose momentum…. [But] DOGE’s artificial-intelligence-fueled vision of government is a vision from Franz Kafka, not Friedrich Hayek…
And also:
Henry Farrell: How AI Madness Helped Fuel DOGE : ‘First, “effective accelerationism” is an important part of the intellectual mix that helped produce the AI-DOGE chimera. In particular, the neo-reactionary arguments of Nick Land have had real, and pernicious consequences…. Claims about how our world will be radically remade in the image of machine logic are nearly ubiquitous, whether the authors view the machine-god state as something to be feared, celebrated or both at once…. Second… there is a fundamental difference between the disastrous DOGE project and the apparently similar push by both center right- and left-leaning people to create a more effective and responsive government bureaucracy….
The two approaches differ crucially on the question of who should the government be responsive to? DOGE/AI Thought starts from the premise that bureaucracy should be primarily (perhaps even exclusively) responsive to the people at the top. From this perspective, the problem that AI solves is a mixture of regular institutional inertia and specific “deep state” resistance….
The effective government bureaucracy people… are not in the business of making sure that Dear Leader’s commands get implemented as they ought. Instead, they are primarily interested in freeing bureaucrats to do things that are obviously the right things to do, rather than burying them beneath the concrete of top down mandates. The impulse, then, is to trust bureaucrats more, and give them the means and autonomy to respond to obvious needs. This involves creating better feedback loops between top and bottom, so that measures, tools and perhaps even goals are redefined as the problem becomes better understood. But it also means creating interfaces through which bureaucrats can engage more with the public, and respond better and more quickly to public demands, as well as helping them work sideways with others in the bureaucracy who have necessary skills and knowledge, without getting smothered in red tape. The general bet is not on better subjugating bureaucrats, but on making them more autonomous. This is more or less the opposite of DOGE.…
Anyway - these are side notes to a larger argument. If you are interested, do read the piece itself!…
Brad DeLong back again: What do I think? I think the sharp Henry Farrell has, if you look across his writings for the past year and a half, built obne of the most illuminating accounts we have of what the Musk-Trump DOGE effort was and all of the damage it has done, as well as of the underlying intellectual rot that made it possible. Let me try to synthesize, because I think he has gotten hold of something that most of the commentariat has missed. And let me put it behind the paywall for now, because I am not sure that it is right”
Facts Only
* Torsten Slok states there is no current "AI Jobs Shock."
* Executives are experiencing reductions in hiring due to anticipation of an "AI Jobs Shock."
* Unemployment rates in the Philippines and India have continued to trend lower, remaining well below 2021 levels.
* The hard data show no signs that AI is generating job losses in exposed economies.
* Henry Farrell notes DOGE's effort to reduce government size as a manifestation of a Silicon Valley dream to remake politics.
* DOGE proposes flensing away government complexities based on the faith that AI will achieve efficiency.
* The intellectual mix behind AI-DOGE involved neo-reactionary arguments from Nick Land.
* The DOGE project prioritizes responsiveness from the people at the top, seeking to free bureaucrats rather than subjugating them.
Executive Summary
Executives are reportedly spooked by the possibility of a future "AI Jobs Shock" rather than experiencing an immediate shock. This perception seems to stem from narratives involving grifters seeking money and beliefs about a forthcoming "Digital God." Torsten Slok suggests that hard data does not currently show job losses due to AI in economies most exposed, like India or the Philippines, as unemployment rates remain low. The perceived effects of this disruption appear to be consequences brought forward in time based on expectations of technology-driven labor substitution.
The text also examines the influence of narratives surrounding movements like "DOGE," which aims to reduce government size, framed by figures like Elon Musk. This effort is described as a quest to remake politics, drawing comparisons to historical movements seeking to reshape physical environments, such as the Renaissance engineers who sought to demolish inefficient cities. Further analysis suggests that intellectual currents, specifically "effective accelerationism" and neo-reactionary arguments, have fed into narratives about machine logic shaping society.
The underlying tension lies in differing views on how governmental structures should react to technological change. One perspective posits that AI and the associated ideology lead toward centralized control (like DOGE), while an alternative view suggests the goal of managing bureaucracy is to increase autonomy and better feedback loops between top and bottom, which contrasts with top-down mandates.
Full Take
The narrative structure suggests a pattern where abstract, powerful narratives—such as the vision of a "Digital God" or an AI-fueled state restructuring like DOGE—are used to generate speculative fear among actors who lack direct understanding of the underlying technology. This speculation bypasses concrete economic data regarding current job displacement, creating a feedback loop where belief drives action and institutional change. The pattern involves framing disruption as inevitable substitution for labor, which allows disruptive entities to advance goals that reshape institutions by appealing to an almost utopian vision of machine-driven efficiency, irrespective of current empirical evidence.
The distinction drawn between the DOGE approach (seeking autonomy) and centralized control implies a fundamental tension in how power is managed: whether systems are optimized through top-down mandates or bottom-up responsiveness. The historical parallel with Renaissance engineers highlights the danger when visionary goals are pursued without sufficient understanding of the complex structures being dismantled, suggesting that intellectual arrogance can undermine practical progress. The implication is that the shift toward narratives emphasizing machine logic risks creating institutional frameworks based on unexamined premises rather than verifiable reality.
The key question for resilience is identifying where belief translates into irreversible action regarding institutional integrity and human agency. If change is driven by emergent, non-empirical vibes about a "future," how can actors resist immediate momentum while operating within these newly established, yet untested, paradigms? What mechanisms exist to prioritize systemic understanding over the seductive simplicity of prophetic narratives?
Sentinel — Human
The text appears to be an opinion piece or commentary that synthesizes philosophical and political critiques regarding AI, executive behavior, and the 'DOGE' movement, built upon references to external thinkers.