AI isn't killing jobs, it's 'unbundling' them into lower-paid chunks
- Reference: 1774377126
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2026/03/24/ai_job_unbundling/
- Source link:
That's the gist of a [1]new research paper making the rounds, which pushes back on the idea that more AI exposure automatically means fewer jobs. The authors argue the real question isn't how many tasks a model can do, but whether those tasks can actually be split out without breaking the role.
Microsoft execs worry AI will eat entry level coding jobs [2]READ MORE
Analysts have long warned that automation could wipe out millions of jobs. [3]One recent forecast put the number at 10.4 million US jobs gone by 2030 , roughly 6 percent of the workforce. The implicit assumption behind those numbers is straightforward: if AI can do enough of what you do, you're toast.
This new paper – written by Luis Garicano, professor at the London School of Economics, along with Jin Li and Yanhui Wu, both at the University of Hong Kong – suggests it's not that simple.
Jobs, it argues, aren't neat lists of tasks – they're bundles. Radiologists, for example, don't just read scans. They interpret edge cases, talk to clinicians, and sign off on decisions people act on. Replace the image-reading bit, and you haven't necessarily replaced the job.
[4]
That's where the authors draw the line between what they call "weak bundles" and "strong bundles." Weak ones can be split apart without much fuss, but strong ones can't without losing value.
[5]
[6]
"In weak-bundle occupations, AI automates some tasks and narrows the boundary of the job… In strong-bundle occupations… AI improves performance inside the job, but does not remove the human from the bundle," the authors argue.
In weak-bundle jobs – think churning through support tickets or knocking out predictable bits of code – AI doesn't just replace a task; it reshapes the job. The human is left doing whatever the machine can't, often a narrower slice of the original role.
[7]AI still doesn't work very well, businesses are faking it, and a reckoning is coming
[8]Supposedly big-brained execs are outsourcing decisionmaking to AI
[9]Jack Dorsey's fintech outfit Block announces 40% layoffs, blames AI, gets 23% stock bump
[10]Altman: You think AI is wasted energy? Try raising 100 billion humans
Sounds like a win on paper. In reality, not so much.
Once AI takes over part of the work, the human stops dividing their time. They go all-in on what remains, which means output per worker jumps, prices fall, and suddenly you don't need as many workers as before.
[11]
In other words, the hit to employment doesn't come from AI doing the job outright, but from humans becoming too efficient at the leftovers.
It also squares with what we're seeing so far. AI is reshaping jobs, not wiping them out. Tasks move around, productivity may go up, yet employment and hours haven't shifted much – at least yet. In many cases, the bundle is still holding.
It also explains why the doom predictions and the techno-optimism can both be right at the same time. If you're in a strong-bundle job – something heavy on judgment, context, or responsibility – AI is more likely to make you faster and better paid. If you're in a weak one, it may quietly hollow out your role until there's not much left to defend. ®
Get our [12]Tech Resources
[1] https://x.com/lugaricano/status/2036245912628912132?s=46
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2026/02/23/microsoft_ai_entry_level_russinovich_hanselman/
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/13/ai_us_jobs_2030/
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2acMXlnawnUc4bfpYhiSoHAAAAEU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44acMXlnawnUc4bfpYhiSoHAAAAEU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33acMXlnawnUc4bfpYhiSoHAAAAEU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2026/03/17/ai_businesses_faking_it_reckoning_coming_codestrap/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2026/03/05/execs_rely_on_ai/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2026/02/27/block_q4_2025_ai_layoffs/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2026/02/23/sam_altman_ai_efficiency/
[11] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44acMXlnawnUc4bfpYhiSoHAAAAEU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[12] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Really?
He probably used it as a excuse to cut the inflated hiring he did during covid. He didn't say that AI was taking over those 4000 people's jobs immediately, he held out some hope it would "eventually". You don't get rid of people today you're hoping to replace in 2029 if you actually needed them today.
It's all fun and games
...until AI somehow loses your bookeeping. And botches your ordering and scheduling. And nukes your systems and backups. Far worse than any one employee of even department ever could.
Who you gonna scapegoat then?
Oh, and phones home with ALL of your trade secrets.
This reminds me of the dot com crash rationalizations
For those that remember, during the crash that followed the dot com bubble, companies were firing software developers and engineers all over the place. Not surprisingly, colleges and universities reported that fewer students were entering software and engineering courses, and instead switching to business or other disciplines.
CEOs of engineering companies panicked over that, and started touring colleges campuses giving speeches warning about the dire "shortage" of engineers that could leave the USA (and Canada, and the UK, and etc.) technologically behind. Engineers were vital, they said.
Meanwhile, engineering schools were graduating classes of 100 students and seeing placement rates of 30% of lower.
The problem with trying to pull the wool over the eyes of engineers and people in other STEM fields is that they (the good ones) are the people who apply analytical reasoning. And when they apply that reasoning to think tanks claiming that everything is and AI isn't anything to worry about, they recognize a snow job when they see it.
Might be somewhat true, at least for now .....
If your company has less than say, 10 (or some other small number - depends on the nature of the business I guess) slaves/workerbees, AI probably won't affect the number of jobs much.
But in larger organizations, with many people whose jobs AI can at least partially perform, you bet your behind that AI will reduce jobs. Many many jobs will be lost (even if it turns out in the end that they should have kept those people)
Are these people (the so-called researchers) not able to think more than 1 or 2 steps ahead?
Really?
So the 4000 jobs at Block that were lost to AI thanks to that noodle Jack Dorsey doesn't count? I'd be very curious as to which AI company sponsored this 'research'.