Peter McCrory

I tried to get in contact multiple times.

It's a great question.

Not exactly.

So I'm the head of economics, which basically means...

My team is trying to make sense of the economic implications of AI.

We're a part of the Anthropic Institute, which is this new effort to produce substantive, rigorous, clear-eyed research about AI's impact on society, on the economy.

And it's not intended to convince people to feel one way or another, but rather to...

be reflective and careful in how we make sense of how people and businesses are using Claude and what that might mean about the impact of AI today on the economy and also what might be on the horizon.

So I would say that the bulk of the work that my team does is...

mostly trying to catch up to the present.

So about a year ago, we introduced the Anthropic Economic Index, which is a measure of how people and businesses use CLOD for specific tasks associated with jobs throughout the economy.

And that was intended to just track usage and diffusion.

Dario's comment is more about what's on the horizon, as you said, potentially in the next one to five years.

Now- Do you agree with that?

Do you agree with what he said?

I would say that there is a range of uncertainty, and that's within one of the realms of possibility is this more disruptive scenario.

AI is a general purpose technology.

It is set to affect almost every occupation to some extent and every sector, and the capabilities are improving very rapidly.

I would say so far in the data, we don't see signs that...

workers in roles that are most exposed to AI have had any material increase in the rates of unemployment.