Davos last week basically turned into a giant argument about who gets the benefits of AI and who gets the bill when jobs change.
Here’s what the biggest voices said on AI + work.
Jensen Huang (NVIDIA CEO):
He pushed the upbeat line that AI is creating “jobs, jobs, jobs,” because it forces a huge build-out of computers, power, and data centers (big facilities that run AI).
He framed AI as the next major “infrastructure” wave and told people to jump in.
Kristalina Georgieva (IMF head):
She warned AI is a coming “tsunami” for jobs, especially entry-level jobs (starter jobs), meaning young people could get squeezed first.
Her message: train people fast, protect workers better, and don’t let the gains go only to a few.
Christine Lagarde (European Central Bank):
She said AI could widen inequality (a bigger gap between winners and losers) if countries don’t cooperate, and that distrust and trade barriers can slow progress and make the world more divided.
Her vibe was: make shared rules, don’t break the world into tech camps.
Satya Nadella (Microsoft CEO):
He stressed that AI has to produce real benefits for regular people or the public won’t trust it, and the backlash will grow.
Translation: if AI looks like “CEO profits, everyone else suffers,” the mood turns fast.
Bill Gates:
He said AI disruption is real but “solvable,” and floated ideas like AI taxes (charging money tied to AI activity) to fund support for people who lose out.
Larry Fink (BlackRock CEO):
In a Davos talk with Huang, he leaned into the idea that trust is the key currency in the AI era and hinted that people won’t accept an AI future that feels rigged.
Alex Karp (Palantir CEO):
He leaned the other way, warning that a lot of office jobs could get replaced, and that slow movers may fall behind.
His message was “move fast or lose.”
Demis Hassabis (DeepMind):
He said true “AGI” (AI that can do almost any thinking task like a human) is still years away, which is a calmer take than the “it’s basically here” crowd.
Elon Musk (not speaking for the US government):
He predicted very fast progress, said robots will become common, and painted a future where AI/robots bring “abundance” (lots of goods and services).
That’s a hopeful story, just light on the “what happens to wages and jobs in the middle?” part.
The reality-check thread running through Davos:
Even at this optimism-heavy Davos, there was open skepticism.
some labor voices warned AI is being used as a fancy excuse for downsizing.
Reuters also pointed to survey data showing many CEOs still aren’t seeing massive profit boosts yet (ROI = “money back compared to money spent”).
Okay, now the opinion part (journalist hat on, eyebrows raised)
Let’s talk about the “jobs, jobs, jobs” chant from Jensen Huang.
It’s a clever trick: if you define “AI job creation” as “we’re building a lot of buildings and buying a lot of chips,” then yes, AI makes jobs the way a highway project makes jobs.
But that’s not the same question most people are asking.
People aren’t worried there won’t be jobs somewhere.
They’re worried their job will get cut, their pay will drop, or they’ll be forced into worse work with less stability.
And the “don’t worry, it’s all upside” message lands differently when:
the IMF is warning young people could lose the starter jobs they need to begin adult life,
and even the hype-friendly Davos crowd admits workers don’t trust that the gains will be shared fairly.
Here’s the part that doesn’t get enough airtime:
if AI truly boosts productivity (how much work gets done per hour), companies can make the same output with fewer workers.
That can be great for society if the benefits are shared:
shorter work weeks, better pay, cheaper services. But if the benefits mostly go to owners and top executives, then “AI creates jobs” becomes a slogan that quietly skips over the layoffs and wage pressure.
So when Huang sells AI as a giant buildout that automatically equals “jobs,” it feels like we’re being asked to clap for the construction phase… while ignoring what happens after the ribbon cutting.
---
If AI is so good for everyone, why do we keep needing speeches to convince us?
Should governments treat AI like electricity: something that needs rules so the public benefits; or just hope the market magically shares the winnings?
And the big one: if entry-level jobs disappear, how does an entire generation even get started?
For updates on the future of work, and AI in accounting, subscribe here for free: futureproof-playbook-apocalypse.beehiiv.com