By Noah Dominic
Within the discourse of AI (artificial intelligence), a popular refrain is this: AI, bereft of a human essence, cannot wholly replace us. There is no need to panic.
However, this Romantic mantra conflates “us” (humans) with “us” (workers). Automation disrupts not humanity but our livelihoods. Just as IBM machines displaced human computers and power looms displaced textile workers, AI today threatens to make some jobs obsolete.
But whose? We already see AI output in newspapers, films and pubmats. A recent BMI report notes that our BPO industry is slowing due to AI. These are not just numbers but writers, editors, artists, service reps, and actors -- workers -- whom companies no longer find necessary.
In “The Future of the Professions,” Richard and Daniel Susskind claim that AI systems could increasingly perform tasks once reserved for humans sans the unnecessary pretence of human cognition. The market, it seems, is resilient to things whose existence matters more than their humanity. Would you care if, for example, the invites for your next meeting were made by AI?
This can be a cause for excitement. Technology liberates us from drudgery, and job loss is offset by new employment in fields created by the obsolescence itself. All in all, a net increase in living standards awaits us.
But disruptive technology, while plausibly beneficial in the aggregate, is not totally harmless; it creates a Gordian knot of challenges that the State, Capital, and Labour must untangle. Where will workers find income whilst they undertake the arduous task of reskilling? How ought we to compensate people whose intellectual property has been stolen? How do we ensure that both the wealthy and the worker, the proprietor and the proletariat, enjoy the benefits of automation?
These are questions we must place at the forefront as we transition into a brave new world. For while we argue about the limitations of AI, workers are already losing their jobs to robots that don’t need to be human -- just good enough.