Peter McCrory

And we're putting out research that's intended to help us monitor how things develop so that we can have a real-time signal if that type of disruption ultimately materializes.

Yeah, that's a good way to put it.

I would think about it in two steps.

In one step is the question of now casting, which is what impact is AI having on the economy today?

And what's the right way to systematically track that over time?

We put out a labor impact report in early March where we introduced a monitoring framework to answer exactly that question.

And to your point, we see no impact so far.

The second question is a forecasting question.

What might materialize in the next one to five years?

And in this respect, there is a range of uncertainty.

Is it like past technologies that automated some aspects of work, but nevertheless was skill biased in some way?

So like enhancing expertise, maybe automating some jobs, but overall the unemployment rate remains subdued and there's a lot of churn under the surface.

Or is it more like a technology that moves very quickly and produces concentrated increase in unemployment?

I think we still don't have a good handle on how to assign probabilities to these different states of the world.

And I think Dario's point, and I don't want to speak for him, is that this is a scenario that we need to take seriously.

Like what

Should we be thinking about and doing today if that is a scenario that could possibly be on the horizon?

So in general, I would say yes.

The work that we produce is intended to stand on its own merits, to use the best methods that economists know how to use to answer the most pressing questions before us.

And this is a question I think a lot about in building out my team and in building out the portfolio