Nobel economist warns AI doomsday job fears could become self-fulfilling prophecy 70%

By James Cirrone46%

6/27/2026, 6:18:18 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 32 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Appeal to Authority, and Indoctrination, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 30.5% saturation with 165 hits. Analysis detected 1,210 faulty-reasoning hits from 541 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 62.5% and a BS Rank of 70% (6,764 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 69.10% of the article peer group.

A Nobel Prize-winning economist has warned that persistent predictions of artificial intelligence destroying the job market could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. 
Robert Shiller, who shared the 2013 Nobel Prize in economics for his work on asset prices, wrote a guest essay on Monday in The New York Times that argued the panic over AI is not a new sociological phenomenon. 
In fact, he wrote, humans have been worried that new technology could replace them since the days of Aristotle, who envisioned a self-powered loom and a lyre that could play music without someone plucking the strings. 
And in the 19th century, a group of English textile workers  who later became known as Luddites  intentionally destroyed machines they believed would put them out of a job. 
ROBERT SHILLER: PEOPLE AREN'T AS IMPRESSED BY HOMES ANYMORE 
Shiller fears that similar anxieties inherent within us are rearing their head once again. 
He cited a Quinnipiac poll from March that found that 70% of people believe AI will reduce the number of jobs. 
Additionally, only 16% of Americans believe AI will have a positive impact on society over the next two decades, according to a Pew Research survey conducted in June. 
"Like many others, I believe AI could lower employment. 
But unlike most, I don’t necessarily blame the technology itself. 
Instead, I worry about the potency of the fear it is generating," Shiller wrote. 
"Our brains are wired to respond to stories. 
Narratives floating in a population can affect individuals’ economic decisions," he continued. 
"When millions of people make millions and millions of decisions based upon negative expectations, there is a risk that fear can actually help birth the reality." 
THE AI REVOLUTION THREATENS OFFICE JOBS BUT REVIVES DEMAND FOR SKILLED TRADES 
Much of the negative media coverage around AI centers on speculation over how much it will affect jobs and the economy. 
In late May, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei told Axios that, in the next one to five years, AI could eliminate half of all entry-level white-collar jobs and spike unemployment to as much as 20%. 
He later expressed uncertainty over the exact timeline. 
The current unemployment rate is 4.3%, up from 4% at the beginning of President Donald Trump's term in January 2025. 
AI IS TOP REASON FOR US JOB CUTS FOR THIRD STRAIGHT MONTH 
"While the job market has slowed for a host of reasons, there are reports that fear of an AI apocalypse is worsening the freeze and contributing to record lows in consumer sentiment," Shiller argued. 
Shiller implied that tech leaders like Amodei, who promote doom-and-gloom scenarios their own companies could help realize, are being somewhat short-sighted and should be reined in to prevent an economic recession. 
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP 
"Perhaps the best we can do is to appeal directly to the leaders of Silicon Valley who have been promoting these negative narratives with such vigor," Shiller wrote. 
"Surely, the resulting media attention highlighting how dangerously powerful your AI model is may help you sell more wares, but it may be far harder to do so in a period of recession. 
Try not to forget the critical lessons taught by our past." 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.3%James Cirrone: 2.0%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Confirmation Bias4.3%This article: 0.0%James Cirrone: 0.9%FoxBusiness: 3.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.2%James Cirrone: 2.2%FoxBusiness: 4.1%Availability Heuristic10.2%This article: 6.7%James Cirrone: 0.9%FoxBusiness: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic6.7%This article: 0.0%James Cirrone: 0.3%FoxBusiness: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%James Cirrone: 1.4%FoxBusiness: 3.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 10.4%James Cirrone: 8.2%FoxBusiness: 12.9%Framing Effect10.4%This article: 0.0%James Cirrone: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 1.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.0%James Cirrone: 0.5%FoxBusiness: 1.1%Status Quo Bias2.0%This article: 0.0%James Cirrone: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%James Cirrone: 2.0%FoxBusiness: 8.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 9.1%James Cirrone: 1.7%FoxBusiness: 2.0%Pessimism Bias9.1%This article: 30.5%James Cirrone: 7.3%FoxBusiness: 7.9%Negativity Bias30.5%This article: 6.1%James Cirrone: 1.2%FoxBusiness: 4.5%Self-Serving Bias6.1%This article: 1.8%James Cirrone: 1.2%FoxBusiness: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error1.8%This article: 0.0%James Cirrone: 0.3%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 5.2%James Cirrone: 2.3%FoxBusiness: 1.7%In-Group Bias5.2%This article: 5.7%James Cirrone: 0.9%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias5.7%This article: 0.0%James Cirrone: 1.3%FoxBusiness: 3.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%James Cirrone: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%James Cirrone: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.9%James Cirrone: 1.4%FoxBusiness: 2.3%Recency Bias8.9%This article: 7.2%James Cirrone: 0.4%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Primacy Effect7.2%This article: 0.0%James Cirrone: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 5.7%James Cirrone: 1.0%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Ad Hominem5.7%This article: 0.0%James Cirrone: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.5%James Cirrone: 4.0%FoxBusiness: 7.2%Appeal to Authority13.5%This article: 2.2%James Cirrone: 0.9%FoxBusiness: 1.6%False Dilemma2.2%This article: 5.7%James Cirrone: 1.0%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Slippery Slope5.7%This article: 4.8%James Cirrone: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Circular Reasoning4.8%This article: 9.6%James Cirrone: 3.0%FoxBusiness: 6.3%Hasty Generalization9.6%This article: 5.2%James Cirrone: 0.4%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Red Herring5.2%This article: 3.9%James Cirrone: 0.7%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Bandwagon3.9%This article: 2.6%James Cirrone: 5.1%FoxBusiness: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion2.6%This article: 4.8%James Cirrone: 1.0%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Begging the Question4.8%This article: 14.8%James Cirrone: 4.0%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)14.8%This article: 6.1%James Cirrone: 0.6%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Tu Quoque6.1%This article: 0.0%James Cirrone: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%James Cirrone: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 6.7%James Cirrone: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.3%Composition/Division6.7%This article: 6.3%James Cirrone: 0.9%FoxBusiness: 2.4%Anecdotal6.3%This article: 0.0%James Cirrone: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.5%James Cirrone: 1.8%FoxBusiness: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.5%This article: 0.0%James Cirrone: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%James Cirrone: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%James Cirrone: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%James Cirrone: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%James Cirrone: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%James Cirrone: 2.3%FoxBusiness: 1.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 7.9%James Cirrone: 1.6%FoxBusiness: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection7.9%This article: 2.0%James Cirrone: 2.9%FoxBusiness: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice2.0%This article: 10.9%James Cirrone: 0.9%FoxBusiness: 1.7%Indoctrination10.9%This article: 0.0%James Cirrone: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%James Cirrone: 0.5%FoxBusiness: 2.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%James Cirrone: 0.5%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.5%

541 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers64%attributed speech195writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Shiller • 39 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Shiller • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Shiller • 9 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Shiller • 14 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Shiller • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Shiller • 9 words • 100.0% coverageRobert Shiller • 10 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Shiller • 14 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Shiller • 8 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Shiller • 12 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Shiller • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageDario Amodei • 34 words • 100.0% coverageDario Amodei • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Shiller • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageRobert Shiller • 28 words • 100.0% coverageRobert Shiller • 33 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Shiller • 11 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Dario Amodei

81%flagged-word coverage
42 attributed words12% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%42.5%85.0%Quote-first Misdirection+81.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Dario Amodei: 81.0%81.0%Indoctrination-15.9 ptsWriter: 15.9%Dario Amodei: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-5.6 ptsWriter: 5.6%Dario Amodei: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -4.1 ptsWriter: 4.1%Dario Amodei: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.