The AI-Related Job Impacts Clarity Act Will Only Create Confusion
Senators Mark Warner (D-VA) and Josh Hawley (R-MO) introduced the AI-Related Job Impacts Clarity Act, S.3108, this month, which would require companies and federal agencies to report to the Department of Labor how many individuals they lay off due to artificial intelligence (AI). On the surface, the proposal may sound like a reasonable effort to promote transparency around automation and employment, but its vague criteria would generate inconsistent and largely meaningless data, create a misleading narrative about AI-driven layoffs, and risk stigmatizing the very technology it seeks to understand.
The first issue with this legislation is that it attempts to measure something that is often ambiguous. In some cases, the connection between AI and job losses might be clear, such as when a company replaces its customer support agents with chatbots. But in the vast majority of situations, AI is embedded into broader workflows, augmenting human tasks rather than fully replacing them, making it nearly impossible for companies to determine which job losses are directly attributable to AI.
AI productivity tools, for example, might handle scheduling, draft routine reports, or summarize meetings, tasks that once required more of a person’s time—yet adoption of these tools frees workers to focus on higher-priority projects rather than displacing them. This ambiguity will produce inconsistent, low-value data that policymakers cannot reliably use to assess AI’s effects on employment.
Singling out AI further risks framing technology-driven efficiency gains as job threats, creating a narrative that AI adoption is the cause of layoffs, while ignoring the reality that companies that fail to adopt new technologies would also shed jobs if they fail to remain competitive. Fears about job losses from AI echo past fears about technological innovation: When industrial robots appeared, people predicted dark factories; when self-driving trucks emerged, they forecast the end of trucking. Change is often much harder and slower than technology skeptics fear. Moreover, most technological changes have not caused mass layoffs; instead, they have created more specialized, higher-paying roles.
Much like past innovations, in many cases, AI will complement and enhance workers rather than replace them; streamlining tasks, freeing employees’ time for higher-value work, and creating demand for new skills. Even simple tools, like meeting transcription software, reduce repetitive work while enabling teams to focus on analysis and collaboration. By isolating AI from the broader story of technological progress, lawmakers risk casting ordinary productivity gains as something to fear rather than an opportunity to guide responsibly.
Second, the Department of Labor already collects extensive information about employment dynamics. The Bureau of Labor Statistics tracks layoffs and hires through the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey. Large-scale layoffs are also reported through the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. No law required tracking of previous automation-related job losses. Adding another layer that requires companies and agencies to report AI-specific layoffs doesn’t improve insight; it duplicates existing data and imposes unnecessary administrative burdens on the private sector.
Importantly, it also reinforces the misleading narrative that AI adoption is the primary driver of job loss, ignoring the broader competitive pressures that shape employment as well as the overall levels of employment. If the goal is to design smarter workforce transition policies, the Department of Labor can do that with current tools, such as the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, which funds training and job placement to help workers develop in-demand skills.
Finally, the bill risks stigmatizing AI adoption. By mandating reports on AI-related layoffs, the legislation frames AI as a job destroyer blamed for every economic disruption and job layoff. No firm wants to appear on a public list of AI-caused layoffs, so companies may minimize or delay AI adoption simply to avoid negative headlines or political backlash, slowing growth, limiting wage gains, and weakening U.S. competitiveness. Rather than encouraging innovation and AI use, the bill could make companies reluctant to experiment at all, thereby minimizing AI-driven productivity.
Instead of mandating a vague, AI-specific, reporting legislation, policymakers should focus on three constructive goals: improving data collection about AI adoption, including by setting precise, technical criteria for what qualifies as AI, and directing the U.S. Census Bureau to incorporate these definitions into its existing firm surveys—such as the Annual Business Survey—which already track business characteristics, technology use, and innovation; measuring real-world impacts by tracking how new technologies affect workflows, productivity, and employee roles, using metrics like task completion times, error rates, and job transformation, to ensure policies are grounded in evidence rather than arbitrary labels; and supporting workforce adaptation by funding hands-on retraining and upskilling programs that help workers apply AI tools effectively in their own industries.
The AI-Related Job Impacts Clarity Act may be well-intentioned, but it risks generating misleading data, creating a narrative that AI adoption is uniquely responsible for layoffs, and diverting resources from more effective public and private initiatives. A smarter approach should treat AI not as an existential threat to jobs, but as the next chapter in a long history of technological progress, one that, if guided wisely, can boost productivity and help the United States sustain its global technological leadership.
Image credit for social media image preview: New America/Flickr
