Nageswaran warns AI could affect jobs, judgment and public finances

Mint reported that Nageswaran’s five warnings included job cuts, weaker human judgment and safety risks.[1] He also warned that AI’s consequences could reach beyond the labour market, flagging possible effects on financial institutions and public revenues.[1] Another concern he raised was that AI could affect people’s ability to think and make decisions independently.[1] The remarks were delivered at the Per Jacobsson Foundation Lecture in Bangkok.[1] Taken together, the warnings cover employment, institutions, government revenues and individual decision-making.[1]

Nageswaran described the threat to entry-level jobs and disruption of the first rung of the career ladder as the first of the five risks.[2] He said firms were hiring fewer junior employees.[2] He cited a study covering 41 countries, in which the junior share of the workforce fell in 23 of the 31 countries that could be measured.[2] For the United States, he said employment for 22-to-25-year-olds in the most AI-exposed jobs had fallen about 19% behind employment of older workers in those jobs.[2] The figures he cited cover specific countries, age groups and job exposure categories.[2]

Nageswaran linked entry-level employment to a longer-term concern: he said the people who will check AI’s work in the future develop on the first rung of the career ladder.[2] That puts the staffing question alongside the oversight question in his warning: fewer junior roles could mean fewer opportunities to develop the people he says will later review AI’s work.[2] For employers, the practical issue is how to weigh near-term changes in junior hiring against the development of future reviewers.

Nageswaran said finance ministries, central banks and households would bear costs if current optimism about AI proved wrong.[2] He added that these entities could still pay part of the cost even if AI expectations proved right.[2] Mint separately reported his warning that AI could affect financial institutions and public revenues.[1] The remarks therefore raise questions about both the potential consequences for public finances and who absorbs costs under different outcomes.[1][2]