Economist warns "missing intercept" traps distort AI wage-impact papers
paulnovosad · x · 2026-09-16
Economist Paul Novosad cautions that papers on negative wage/employment effects of AI must be read very carefully: the same result can be presented in two very different ways. In his view, a finding framed as declining wages for AI-exposed workers does not justify concluding those workers are worse off—the issue lies in how the intercept/baseline is handled. Arpit Rague amplified it as the latest in a continuing "missing intercept" series.
Related event: Economists Clash Over How to Read GenAI's Wage Effects(11 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- Elad Hazan Recalls Two Decades of Online Convex Optimization — Born as a Job Hedge — HazanPrinceton · 2026-09-16
- Microsoft AI chief Suleyman calls to strip AI consciousness talk from training docs, jabbing Anthropic — pstAsiatech · 2026-09-16
- AI is not yet driving drug development, Axios reports — polymute · 2026-09-16
- Cambridge AI-risk scholar on whistleblower warnings: >10% extinction odds this decade — S_OhEigeartaigh · 2026-09-16
- Ben Bajarin 'supremely bullish' on AI buildout after Pat Gelsinger podcast — BenBajarin · 2026-09-16
- NYT Profiles the Recursive Self-Improvement Startups, Including Jeff Clune's Recursive Superintelligence — jeffclune · 2026-09-16