As AI continues to redefine how economies function, Silicon Valley has largely focused on the upside—new markets, supercharged productivity, and the rise of solo entrepreneurs running billion-dollar startups. But with that optimism has come mounting anxiety over a future where machines could replace swathes of the global workforce, especially in entry-level and white-collar sectors. Now, one of AI’s key players is trying to meet that tension head-on.

Anthropic, the San Francisco-based AI company behind Claude, on Friday launched its Economic Futures Program, a new initiative that aims to understand and prepare for the seismic labor and economic shifts that generative AI is expected to trigger. Unlike many industry efforts that focus on showcasing innovation, Anthropic’s program is explicitly focused on researching the real-world impact of AI on jobs, productivity, fiscal policy, and inequality.

“Everybody’s asking questions about what are the economic impacts [of AI], both positive and negative,” Sarah Heck, Anthropic’s Head of Policy Programs and Partnerships, told TechCrunch. “It’s really important to root these conversations in evidence and not have predetermined outcomes or views on what’s going to [happen].”

The program follows remarks by Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, who warned in May that AI could eliminate up to 50% of entry-level white-collar jobs within the next five years, potentially pushing unemployment rates as high as 20%. That projection shared more candidly than most industry leaders are willing to admit, casts a shadow over the glowing productivity statistics that AI developers are touting to investors and governments.

Anthropic’s new initiative is part of a small but growing movement among AI firms to position themselves not just as builders of disruptive technologies but as stewards of social stability in the aftermath. The Economic Futures Program will:

• Fund empirical research on AI’s effect on labor markets and value creation.
• Convene policy symposiums in Washington, D.C. and Europe.
• Partner with academic institutions and nonprofits to build datasets tracking AI’s impact on economic systems.

Anthropic is kicking off the program with rapid grants of up to $50,000, available to individuals and teams who can deliver data-driven insights within six months. Unlike traditional research funding, peer review isn’t a requirement—what matters is speed and relevance. The company will also offer Claude API credits to assist researchers in analyzing and prototyping.

“We want to understand the transitions,” Heck said. “How are new jobs being created that nobody ever contemplated before? How are certain skills remaining valuable while others are not?”

While many policy efforts today focus narrowly on job displacement, Anthropic wants to broaden the aperture, including investigations into:

• Workflow redesign in AI-enhanced industries.
• Shifts in fiscal policy and tax structure as companies adopt AI.
• How governments should invest in education and training to build new value pipelines.

Heck emphasized that this is not a lobbying effort. Instead, the company is trying to inject real data into policy conversations that are currently filled with speculation and polarization.

Contrasts with OpenAI’s Blueprint

The move comes months after Anthropic’s chief competitor, OpenAI, released its Economic Blueprint in January. That document largely promotes adoption, infrastructure, and regional development—outlining frameworks for AI literacy, building AI economic zones, and scaling access to cloud computing. But it sidesteps the direct question of job loss, focusing instead on skilling up the workforce and creating new hubs for AI investment.

In contrast, Anthropic’s approach is more grounded in economic risk assessment. Its internal Economic Index, launched earlier this year, aggregates anonymized data to study labor shifts in real time—offering a level of transparency that few tech companies currently match.

While OpenAI’s Stargate project—a $100 billion plan to build cutting-edge data centers in partnership with Oracle and SoftBank—promises tens of thousands of construction jobs, it doesn’t directly address the fact that many of the same systems may soon automate entire departments across industries ranging from finance to marketing.

Anthropic’s Economic Futures Program also comes as part of a larger reputational recalibration happening across the tech sector. With governments from the U.S. to the EU scrutinizing AI’s social consequences, companies are increasingly trying to show that they’re not just disruptors, but also responsible stakeholders.

Earlier this week, Lyft launched a forum to gather input from drivers as it begins to roll out robotaxis—a rare case of a platform actually engaging workers likely to be displaced by automation.

Anthropic appears to be taking a similar stance, admitting that while AI might boost GDP, those gains won’t be equally distributed unless the consequences are managed intentionally and transparently.

“If there is job loss, then we should convene a collective group of thinkers to talk about mitigation,” Heck said. “If there will be huge GDP expansion, great. We should also convene policymakers to figure out what to do with that.”

With this initiative, Anthropic is betting that responsible AI will not just be an ethical imperative, but also a long-term strategic advantage—especially in an industry whose economic impact could rival the scale of the industrial revolution.

Microsoft is taking a harder stance on employee AI adoption, instructing some managers to factor the use of internal AI tools—particularly GitHub Copilot—into employee performance reviews.

The push, first reported by Business Insider, is part of a broader effort to drive internal uptake of the company’s flagship AI products amid growing signs that even Microsoft’s own employees are opting for alternatives like ChatGPT.

In a memo seen by BI, Julia Liuson, President of Microsoft’s Developer Division, told managers that AI usage should now be considered a “fundamental part of how we work,” equating it with key performance traits such as collaboration, data-driven decision-making, and communication.

“Using AI is no longer optional — it’s core to every role and every level,” Liuson wrote.

Managers were instructed to evaluate how effectively employees integrate internal AI tools, such as GitHub Copilot, into their daily work as part of “holistic” performance evaluations.

Growing Internal Discontent with Copilot

The policy comes amid increasing signs of dissatisfaction with GitHub Copilot, even across parts of Microsoft’s own workforce. Despite being the company’s signature AI coding assistant, Copilot is reportedly being shunned by some employees, who prefer using OpenAI’s ChatGPT, which they consider to be more versatile and accurate.

Internal feedback, according to people familiar with the matter, shows that developers often find ChatGPT more effective for writing, debugging, and explaining code—despite Copilot being tailored specifically for those tasks. Some developers have also raised concerns about Copilot’s inconsistent performance, limited context handling, and integration issues with certain programming environments.

The situation is awkward for Microsoft, which has invested billions into OpenAI and co-developed Copilot as a commercial application of GPT technology. ChatGPT, on the other hand, is OpenAI’s direct-to-consumer product—and it’s pulling users away from Microsoft’s own platform.

The problem is compounded by rising competition in the AI developer tool space. Rivals like Cursor, which builds on top of GPT-4 and offers deeper integration for code workflows, have gained traction among professional developers. A recent Barclays note cited data suggesting Cursor had surpassed Copilot in usage among some developer groups.

Meanwhile, Microsoft has allowed employees to use some approved third-party tools such as Replit, which has gained popularity for its ease of use and real-time feedback features. Yet even with this flexibility, internal preference for ChatGPT remains strong.

The growing reliance on OpenAI’s flagship chatbot rather than Microsoft’s branded tools adds complexity to the companies’ evolving partnership. Microsoft is reportedly renegotiating its deal with OpenAI, and internal documents show that disagreements have emerged around intellectual property and access rights—especially as OpenAI weighs acquiring Cursor competitor Windsurf.

According to sources, OpenAI and Windsurf want to block Microsoft from inheriting IP access rights through its OpenAI agreement. These discussions highlight how Microsoft’s aggressive Copilot strategy and internal adoption struggles are intersecting with broader tensions in the AI industry.

A Cultural Shift with Potential Blowback

Microsoft’s effort to mandate AI usage reflects a cultural shift within the company, aiming to align its workforce with the same AI-first vision it sells to enterprise clients. But turning AI use into a performance metric also risks internal pushback, especially if employees feel forced to adopt tools they view as less effective than third-party alternatives.

However, Microsoft seems determined to push forward. While some teams are informally integrating AI-use metrics into reviews, others are considering formalizing the requirement starting in the next fiscal year.

The company’s leadership sees this as vital not just for productivity, but also for product refinement—believing that widespread internal use of tools like Copilot will help close feature gaps and improve competitiveness.

The Dutch government has pledged €70 million to establish a state-of-the-art artificial intelligence hub in the northern city of Groningen, setting the stage for a €200 million AI infrastructure investment designed to solidify Europe’s digital independence in an era dominated by U.S. and Chinese tech giants.

Dubbed an “AI factory,” the facility will be managed by a national consortium and is expected to house high-performance computing infrastructure, advanced datasets, and collaborative research programs spanning sectors like healthcare, agriculture, energy, and defense. If all goes to plan, the AI factory will be commissioned in 2026 and running at full capacity by early 2027.

In addition to the Dutch government’s €70 million commitment, the Groningen regional administration has pledged another €60 million. The Netherlands has also formally applied for €70 million in co-financing from the European Union, bringing the potential total investment to €200 million.

“This is not a luxury, but a pure necessity to maintain our digital independence and competitiveness,” said Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs Vincent Karremans. “Those who do not develop the technology themselves are dependent on others. That is why we are fully committed to a strong Dutch AI infrastructure.”

The initiative forms part of a broader European strategy to reduce reliance on AI platforms developed by U.S.-based firms like OpenAI, Google DeepMind, and Microsoft, and to prevent Europe from becoming a passive consumer in the global tech race.

Groningen was selected as the site for the AI factory due to its favorable infrastructure, existing academic and research institutions—including the University of Groningen and University Medical Center Groningen—and its capacity to host industrial-scale data processing facilities.

The project will be developed within the grounds of the former Niemeyer tobacco factory, transforming the space into a leading European innovation zone. The facility will host a supercomputer, secure data-sharing protocols, and a network of AI researchers and developers. It will also collaborate closely with the AI Hub North Netherlands, a consortium led by SURF, TNO, and AIC4NL.

In total, at least 12 major AI projects are expected to be launched from the Groningen facility over the next two years.

Europe’s Bid for AI Sovereignty

The AI factory in Groningen is part of the European Commission’s broader AI and supercomputing strategy. The EU is currently rolling out the “AI Factories” program under its €200 billion investment package in strategic technologies. The initiative is also aligned with Europe’s EuroHPC and Horizon Europe frameworks, which aim to build out a network of high-performance computing sites across the continent.

This latest Dutch commitment echoes a sentiment gaining traction among European policymakers: sovereignty in digital infrastructure is now as important as energy or defense.

The concern stems from the risk that a growing dependence on U.S. firms for core AI models, cloud services, and semiconductor technology could leave Europe exposed to political or economic coercion. Recent geopolitical tensions, including U.S.-China tech rivalry and global chip shortages, have only heightened those fears.

Public Reaction

On platforms like Reddit, Dutch users have welcomed the news, noting Groningen’s excess energy capacity, available space, and strong academic institutions as key advantages. However, some commenters expressed concern about whether complementary infrastructure—like housing, transportation, and skilled labor—will scale fast enough to support the facility’s ambitions.

If successful, the Groningen AI factory could emerge as one of the EU’s flagship technology hubs—anchoring the continent’s position in the global race for artificial intelligence supremacy. It could also attract European tech talent that might otherwise migrate to Silicon Valley or Shenzhen in search of cutting-edge infrastructure and research opportunities.