Special Edition: AI's Impact – Does Anyone Have a Plan?

Summary

The NewsWorthy: Special Edition Saturday — “AI’s Impact: Does Anyone Have a Plan?”
Host: Erica Mandy | Guest: Josh Tierengel, Staff Writer at The Atlantic
Date: April 11, 2026

---

Episode Overview

In this Special Edition Saturday episode, journalist Erica Mandy interviews Josh Tierengel—Emmy and Peabody award-winning producer, Atlantic staff writer, and author of "AI For Good." The conversation dives into the complex and controversial topic of artificial intelligence (AI) and its impacts on the workforce. Drawing on Tierengel’s recent investigation for The Atlantic, the episode explores the differing expert opinions, the current landscape of job disruption, the motivations of AI industry leaders, and what ordinary citizens can do to shape the future of AI.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Why This Investigation, and What Did It Find?

• Main Goal: Tierengel sought to answer the fundamental question: “What the hell is going on?” with AI and jobs ([01:46]).
• Three Groups Consulted: Economists, CEOs, and policymakers. Each group offered fundamentally different perspectives on the impact, pace, and direction of AI disruption ([01:46–02:55]).

2. The State of Expert Consensus

• No Unified Stance Across Sectors:

  • Economists are divided:
    • Traditional economists believe that, like previous technological disruptions, AI will ultimately yield more and better jobs.
    • A newer wave of (primarily younger) economists argues this disruption is unlike previous ones because of AI’s speed, scale, and self-deployment ([03:15]).
  • CEOs fall into two camps:
    • Some are still dismissive of AI.
    • Others see the productivity benefits and pressure from Wall Street to demonstrate AI-driven growth—often by cutting jobs.
  • Policymakers: Most aren’t paying attention, except “the two people who see the same thing here are Bernie Sanders and Steve Bannon…They both see AI as potentially job-killing technology and nobody’s doing anything about it” ([05:54–06:28]).

  Notable Quote:
  “The lack of consensus is a form of consensus.” — Josh Tierengel ([02:58])

3. AI’s Current and Future Impact on Jobs

• Early Effects:
  • Companies sometimes cite AI as the reason for layoffs even when it’s not the main cause.
  • Others are quietly using AI to phase out jobs, but patterns are not yet clear and robust data is lacking ([06:54]).
  • “Programs like Claude Code can do the work of 20 software engineers in 1/20th of the time… We’ve seen early use cases.” ([07:55])
• Ramp-Up Timeline:
  • If job displacement is gradual (“over 20 years”), society can adapt.
  • “The slower the fade, the better off we’re likely to be. If it happens fast… that’s when you can see some real problems.” ([09:10])

4. Motivations of AI Industry Insiders

• Conflicted Interests:
  • When AI companies boast about “putting half of the white-collar workforce out of work,” it’s partly true—but it can also be aimed at attracting investor dollars ([12:30]).
  • “There’s no purity… this is competition. This is, by and large, private industry in a cutthroat competition to get ahead.” ([12:58])
• Claims to Skepticism:
  • Larger and more dramatic the claim, the more cautious listeners should be about the speaker’s motives ([13:46]).

5. The Policy Void and Potential Consequences

• Political Inaction:
  • Key oversight roles are filled by those with deep industry ties. E.g. David Sacks, “also invested in hundreds of AI companies… not the most independent… believes AI’s best bet is to be unregulated” ([13:54–15:12]).
• Missed Opportunities:
  • Neither party’s political center is prioritizing job retraining or regulatory oversight, exacerbating risks of rapid change ([05:52–06:28]).

6. What the Public Might Be Missing

• Fear and Avoidance:

  • The deluge of doom-and-gloom predictions risks making the public passive and disengaged ([15:21]).
  • “You actually have to engage with the tools, understand what they can do… The software is here to stay. So we may as well use it to make the world better.” ([15:48])

• Counterintuitive Upside:

  • Beyond chatbots and automation, AI has vast potential for public good—education, healthcare, medicine, government, human connection ([16:08]).

  Notable Quote:
  “We have to figure out a way to separate the baby from the bathwater here, because the tech… will make this a way better civilization to live in. I really mean that.” — Josh Tierengel ([16:08])

7. What Ordinary People Can—and Should—Do

• Active Participation Needed:

  • “You can’t be in a defensive crouch. You actually have to come out, you have to engage in it and you kind of have to demand service and how you want to engage with AI.” ([17:25])

• User Behavior Shapes Technology:

  • How individuals use (or refuse to use) AI directly influences its development.
  • Engaging with representatives on AI issues is vital—“if they're not motivated, vote them out.” ([17:52])

• Grand Takeaway:

  • AI is too powerful to leave to others. Sitting it out or surrendering agency is a mistake ([18:26]).

  Notable Quote:
  “The only way your voice can be heard is how you use AI and what you won’t use it for. Believe me, every AI company is very aware of user behavior.” — Josh Tierengel ([17:42])

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Divided Economic Outlooks:
  “The more traditional academic economists… have no reason to think that in the long run, AI won’t do the same thing [as previous tech]: create more jobs. Younger economists say: ‘…You may be getting the economics right, but you’re getting the technology wrong.’” — Josh Tierengel ([03:15])

• On Political Odd Couples:
  “Bernie Sanders and Steve Bannon… both see AI as potentially job-killing technology and nobody’s doing anything about it.” — Josh Tierengel ([06:28])

• On the Urgency of Engagement:
  “I want people to get a little bit more active and not view this as like one more thing happening to them, but potentially one more thing they could actually use to make their lives better.” — Josh Tierengel ([18:32])

---

Key Timestamps

• [01:46] – Josh Tierengel’s approach: interviewing economists, CEOs, policymakers
• [02:58] – “The lack of consensus is a form of consensus”
• [03:15] – Economic divide and historical context
• [06:28] – Bannon, Sanders, and bipartisan anxieties
• [06:54] – Real-time job impacts; confusion about responsibility
• [09:10] – The importance of the “speed” of transition
• [12:30] – AI industry insiders and conflicting motives
• [13:54] – Policy shortcomings and divided oversight
• [15:21] – Public disengagement and risks of sitting it out
• [16:08] – The overlooked good of AI for society
• [17:25] – Call to personal agency and the importance of user choices

---

Episode Tone

The conversation is lively, thoughtful, and accessible—balancing caution with optimism. Erica Mandy’s style is friendly and probing, while Josh Tierengel’s explanations are frank, insightful, and rich with real-world examples. Both encourage listeners to move beyond fear, question headlines, and actively participate in AI’s future.

---

Bottom Line:
While AI’s impact on jobs is riddled with uncertainty and self-interested spin, it isn’t an inevitability happening to us—citizens, workers, and consumers play a crucial role in shaping AI’s disruptive potential for better or worse. Engagement, awareness, and demand for responsible development and use are the only real levers we have.

Transcript

[A]

Today is Saturday, April 11th. There's a lot of hype and fear about what artificial intelligence could mean for the future of work and life in general. Some say it could lead to more productivity and new opportunities. Others warn it could disrupt millions of jobs and do it faster than we've ever seen before. So our guest today set out to get some answers by talking to top experts across multiple fields. And what he found surprised even him. Here to explain is Josh Tierengel, staff writer at the Atlantic who wrote an article that had caught my eye called America Isn't ready for what AI will do to jobs. He's also a 12 time Emmy and Peabody Award winning producer who created Vice News Tonight on HBO and worked alongside Oprah Winfrey on an ABC special called AI and the Future of Us. His new book, AI For Good is now available for pre order. Today he's sharing how AI is already changing the workplace and a key factor that will determine how disruptive AI will be on jobs in the future. He also describes what he heard from powerful leaders, what they're doing and what conflicts of interest cannot be ignored and perhaps most importantly, the role all of us can and should play in shaping what comes next. Welcome to the Newsworthy special edition Saturday when we sit down with a different expert or celebrity every Saturday to talk about something in the news. Don't forget to tune in every Monday through Friday for our regular episodes where we provide all the day's news in less than 15 minutes. Erica I'm Erica Mandy. It's now time for today's special edition Saturday. Josh Tierengale, thank you so much for joining us here on the Newsworthy.

[B]

My pleasure to be here.

[A]

So there are a lot of different articles and theories about AI So I'm curious, when you went out to write this one for the Atlantic, what was your main goal or how were you thinking about it before you got started?

[B]

My main goal was to answer this very basic question, which is what the hell is going on? You know, which I think is a very simple question with a lot of very complicated answers. And you know, I've written a lot about AI. I've interviewed a lot of people, I've thought a lot about it. But ultimately I'm a tourist and that's what I'm good at. And so people were talking a lot about the jobs apocalypse, the economy, the impact of all of this technology on the way we actually live our lives. And so I was like, I think it'd be really good to find out what's true and where I set out pretty quickly was that I think there are three areas of expertise, or so I thought that would be good to understand. And the first is economists. The second is CEOs who are both investing in AI tech and are responsible for paying the great majority of people who work in the United States of America. And the last are policymakers who have something to say about the way this whole system works, how AI might be regulated. So that was the naive way in which I started this story.

[A]

And fair to say there's no consensus out there.

[B]

I would say that the lack of consensus is a form of consensus, not to get all tricky and fortune cookie like.

[A]

I liked how you put it in the description of the article too, where it's like, this might be one of the only areas where Bernie Sanders and Steve Bannon have the same underlying anxiety. Can you speak to that?

[B]

Yeah. I mean, so I'll tell you, I sort of started genuinely by speaking to economists because I think facts exist in the world. I think that numbers are important. And what I discovered, just consistent through all three of these groups is that there is a divide. Right? And so the more traditional academic economists, they look backward at previous disruptions from technology and they're like, hey, we've never seen a disruption in technology that didn't result in more jobs, better paying jobs, and more productivity. And we have no reason to think that in the long run, AI won't do the same thing. And then there's a group of predominantly younger economists who say, well, you may be getting the economics right, but you're getting the technology wrong. This technology is inherently different. It moves faster. It's already embedded into society. We know that OpenAI has hundreds of millions of users. And not only that, it's smart tech. It can roll itself out. And so technology that can roll itself out will move through the economy faster, it will be disrupted faster. Right? So that's like one kind of disagreement. Then there's the CEOs who I spoke to. They sort of divide into a group of people who kind of know what they're talking about. There's still some CEOs who very much are like, yeah, AI, whatever. But there are also CEOs who know how much more productive AI can make their workforce and to some degree, what. What jobs they can eliminate. And so for them, they've spent a lot of money putting AI into their companies. And what they've been telling me is that Wall street is very much of the mind that, well, you spent a couple years investing. Where's the return? And if they can't show growth from AI. They all feel like they're going to be forced to cut jobs this year because that will at least be something that they can show. And really what they say is if they can't cut jobs and they can't show growth, then it's their jobs they're going to lose. And so they feel like this needs some sort of regulatory help. They want a little bit of a bailout from the government to say, hey, we'll at least invest in lots and lots of job training or retraining. We'll figure out how to regulate AI so that it doesn't kill a lot of jobs, even if there's no evidence yet that it has. And then I went to Washington, and for the most part, the middle of the political spectrum is paying less than zero attention to this as an issue to a shocking degree. Really not focused on regulating AI, not focused on what it may do to the economy, not doing really simple things like reauthorizing the budget for job retraining bills. But as you pointed out, the two people who see the same thing here are Bernie Sanders and Steve Bannon. And where they join hands is that they really do feel like they represent working people against some form of conspiracy, be it the government or corporate, and that those are the people who are about to get really hurt. And so they both spoke about the fact that even though they don't agree with each other on anything, they're seeing this the same way, which is that this is potentially job killing technology and nobody's doing anything about it.

[A]

It was interesting, too, that you wrote in the piece that the impact of AI on jobs may not really be felt for another decade. And yet, as you just spoke to, some layoffs are already happening. And I know there's also been reports of companies blaming AI for the layoffs when that's not really what was going on. So speak again to how AI is playing a role today and then also what factors might be slowing down the impact.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, it's. Listen, it is super confusing for very good reasons. You will have some companies who are under financial pressure saying, hey, we just cut all these jobs and it's all because of AI. And then you look under the hood and you're like, what are you talking about? This is cut jobs and you blamed AI. Then you have other companies that are really afraid of employing AI, but who are using it and who are quote, unquote, phasing out jobs. But there's not enough of a pattern to understand precisely what's happening yet. And so that's where I'm really sympathetic to the economists. So, like, look, we work on data. The data has been slow to arrive. And also we've underinvested in the collection of data, which takes us back to Washington, where we do have all these bodies designed to survey the American public about what's happening in their workplaces. And we've sort of underfunded that too. What you have seen, particularly in the software area, which I think a lot of people have heard about, is like, programs like Claude Code can do the work of 20 software engineers in 1 20th of the time and get you not perfect software, but really, really good software. We've seen customer service software, AI software that can ingest all of a company's manuals and information and in a chat, frankly, do a better job in hundreds of languages at explaining what's wrong with your oven, right? So we've seen these kind of like early use cases. And it doesn't take much if you're an employee to imagine, oh, I'm going to use this AI hack. Well, the next step is like, okay, if the AI can do that and do it really well, what else can it do? How much of my job can it do and what do I go to next? And there are answers, right? Like, I think that I use AI in my work all the time. It has made me more productive. Is that going to be the same for everybody? I don't think so. I think that we will find plenty of job categories where AI takes out the job. The real question for everybody is how fast this happens. And that's, I think, to the point of your ask. There is like, if it happens over 20 years, we'll probably be fine. You know, we don't notice, but job categories sort of come and go. Thirty years ago, we still had elevator operators, and now the notion that someone would be pressing buttons is absurd, right? 20 years ago, we still had toll takers and toll booths. That seems crazy, but they all went through a slow fade. The slower the fade, the better off we're likely to be. If it happens fast and a significant portion of the culture just finds itself suddenly out of work, that's when you can see some real problems

[A]

coming up. Why some of the biggest claims about AI may subjective as they sound, and why a lack of action from policymakers could matter more than you think. Plus, what you can actually do right now to have a say in how this all plays out. That and more still ahead. But first, a break for our sponsors. There are certain parts of the day that just seem to sneak up on me and dinner is one of them. That's why having Home Chef is such a relief. Home Chef makes cooking simple, fresh food delivered, easy recipes to follow and and meals that actually taste great. Some nights I want something quick and hands off like their oven ready meals and other nights I actually want to cook, especially when the recipes are so approachable and having all the ingredients I need is this easy. We've had some really great meals from Home Chef. I'm talking a crispy peanut chicken sandwich with pickled cucumber ribbons and sriracha mayo and pecan crusted salmon with bacon mashed potatoes. The list goes on. My entire family has loved everything we've tried so far from Home Chef and and it's not just me. Home Chef is rated number one by users of other meal kits for quality, convenience, value, taste and recipe ease. And for a limited time, Home Chef is offering listeners of the newsworthy 50% off and free shipping for your first box plus free dessert for life. Go to homechef.com newsworthy that's homechef.com newsworthy for 50% off your first box and free dessert for life. Homechef.com newsworthy you must be an active subscriber to receive the free dessert. The Newsworthy is also brought to you by Quince. I've been in that mindset lately where I just want everything to feel a bit more streamlined, especially in my closet. Fewer pieces, better quality and things I can reach for without overthinking it because who has time for that? That's what I found with Quint. Their whole approach is built around elevated essentials, pieces that are simple, versatile and made with quality materials. I'm talking European linen, organic cotton and soft denim that feels good right away. In fact, I've now been eyeing my next jeans purchase from Quince, knowing I won't need to pay for brand markup and will still get a great looking, high quality pair of jeans. Remember, Quince works directly with ethical factories and cuts out the middlemen so prices are actually reasonable. I already have several Quince pieces that I reach for often from a linen dress to my favorite Carry on suitcase. Ever refresh your spring wardrobe with quince? Go to quince.comnewsworthy for free shipping and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. Go to Q U I n c e.com Newsworthy for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com Newsworthy okay, now back to my conversation with Josh Tieringale and the people who know the technology the best, perhaps the people who are actually working at the AI companies. What do we have to think about when we hear their viewpoints in terms of ulterior motives as well as their knowledge and expertise?

[B]

Yeah, it's a really good point. There is a hairball of motives involved with pretty much everyone in the AI industry because when they say this could put half of the white collar workforce out of work, they may be speaking the truth and they may know a lot about the capabilities of the next generation models. They're also desperate to fundraise. And so if you're an investor and you hear, wow, this product is better than half the white collar workforce. You want to pour your money into it. So there's no purity. You know, I think there's been this comparison to kind of like AI in the space race or AI in the development of nuclear weapons. Those were government programs that, where, you know, the good guys wore government badges and they had a nationalized mission. This is competition. This is, by and large, private industry in a cutthroat competition to get ahead. And so when you hear something like it's going to take out half the workforce, remember that you're not the only audience for that. Sometimes it's directed to someone with a huge checkbook, sometimes it's directed to their opponent, their competitor. The more grandiose the claim, the freakier the competition gets. So it's really hard for the layperson to know what is going on when

[A]

we don't really know what's going on with it. How can both policymakers and the public be influencing how this plays out?

[B]

Yeah, I mean, look, when you don't have an expert, the best thing you can do is try to get the smartest, most capable people with domain expertise in a room together to sort it out. Right. And so that's kind of my, my frustration is I don't, I don't expect any one person to be able to look at this mess and say, oh, no, no, guys, here's what we should do. I do expect that people in positions of great responsibility and power and knowledge, for the good of everybody else would say, we might want to talk about this, but we might actually need to get together and talk about this. And I just think that that political project, and it would start with politics, is not happening. And part of the reason it's not happening is that, frankly, the Trump administration has outsourced oversight of AI to someone named David Sacks. And David Sacks is a very smart guy, but David Sacks is Also, in addition to being very busy, because he's also the crypto czar, he's also invested in hundreds of AI companies and he has a podcast where he talks about his investment in those companies. So I wouldn't call him, like, the most independent, neutral observer of this phenomenon. And he has a belief that AI's best bet is to be unregulated and that it'll all work out in the end.

[A]

What do you think the average American is getting wrong or not understanding in the current kind of mainstream discussion and debate about AI?

[B]

It's a really good question. I mean, I do think that we've talked a lot about the problems of AI, the potential doom of AI, and so most people hear it and are like, I'm out. I got too much existential risk in my life already. You know, there's wars, there's climate, there's pandemics, there's political risk. And I ended up feeling that way, too. So what I did is I actually ended up writing a book called AI for Good, which is about a really simple thing, which is that the technology is actually kind of amazing. And so we have to figure out a way to separate the baby from the bathwater here, because the tech, beyond its functions, as most people see it, as like a chatbot, what AI can do for education, for healthcare, medicine, for government itself, and for human connection, if done properly, will make this a way better civilization to live in. I really mean that. But there is a risk that the kinds of people who your listeners, you, me, the kinds of people who actually do feel invested in making the world a better place, are going to believe that AI is just a tool for people trying to make money. And they're going to sit it out. And you can't really sit it out. You actually have to engage with the tools, understand what they can do. It is not going anywhere. The software is here to stay. So we may as well use it to make the world better and to have it do things we actually care about, as opposed to optimize advertising and spam and porn and cybercrime. Like, it can do that, and bad people will use it to do that. The same stuff can be used to cure diseases, to make your hospital stay better, faster, cheaper. So I think that's what people are missing, counterintuitively, like we're missing the good stuff.

[A]

What do you hope a reader of your article or a listener of this interview takes away at the end of the day?

[B]

Look, I think a lot of the last 25 years have conditioned us to Just be quite passive when it comes to things that are going on in culture. We scroll, right? It's infinite scroll and things are served up to us and we sort of decide whether we want to engage with it or not. I think that the tech is so profound and so disruptive that you can't be in a defensive crouch. You actually have to come out, you have to engage in it and you kind of have to demand service and how you want to engage with AI. You know, we all think I'm one of many billion people. It doesn't matter. The only way it matters, the only way your voice can be heard is how you use AI and what you won't use it for. Believe me, every AI company is very aware of user behavior. What you use it for will dictate how they develop that. How you talk to your representatives about what you want from AI will absolutely motivate them or not motivate them, but if they're not motivated, vote them out. And beyond that, I just think it's a really interesting technology that can be applied to so many different things. And so I want people to get a little bit more active and not view this as like one more thing happening to them, but potentially one more thing they could actually use to make their lives better. I know that is a very grandiose goal for an 8,000 word magazine article, but I do think that the tech has that much power and to sit it out or to delegate to other people who don't have your best interests at heart on. On what to do with it is a mistake.

[A]

Thank you so much to our guest, Josh Tieringale. Check out his article in the Atlantic called America Isn't Ready for what AI Will do to Jobs. And pre order his new book AI for How Real People Are Using Artificial Intelligence to Fix Things that Matter. We'll link to both of those in today's episode notes over on thenewsworthy.com and of course we'll continue to discuss the impact of AI on all of our lives. We keep you informed on a wide variety of news every Monday through Friday in just 15 minutes a day. And then you can catch these more in depth interviews every Saturday. Thank you again for listening and for sharing this episode. If you found it helpful, we'll be back on Monday with the latest news. Until then, have a great rest of your weekend.