We spend a lot of time worrying that artificial intelligence is going to take our jobs.
But AI can’t fire anyone.
People can.
That distinction seems strangely absent from much of the conversation surrounding AI and employment. We talk about automation as though it is a force of nature, something that will simply happen to us. AI will become capable of performing certain tasks, jobs will disappear, and people will be displaced. That’s progress. That’s capitalism. That’s just the way things work.
But is it?
AI doesn’t decide that eliminating 5,000 jobs is worth a three-percent increase in profit. It doesn’t decide that an experienced employee costs too much. It doesn’t decide that a slightly worse customer experience is acceptable if it reduces labor costs. Human beings make those decisions.
That doesn’t necessarily make those decisions wrong. Companies have legitimate obligations to remain competitive, control costs, innovate, and adapt to changing markets. Sometimes technology eliminates jobs while creating entirely new ones. We’ve watched that happen repeatedly throughout history.
Still, I wonder why we so rarely discuss the other side of the equation: human loyalty to other humans.
Why do we assume that if technology makes replacing a person economically advantageous, replacement is inevitable? Why is maximizing efficiency treated almost as a natural law rather than a choice? At what point did “the market allows it” become interchangeable with “this is what we should do”?
These questions become especially important with AI because its capabilities could eventually extend far beyond automating repetitive tasks. If AI becomes capable of performing substantial portions of knowledge work, organizations will face decisions that are not technological at all. They will be ethical, cultural, and economic decisions made by people.
Perhaps that’s what makes the conversation uncomfortable.
It’s easier to fear AI.
AI is an excellent bogeyman because we cannot hold it morally accountable. We can imagine some faceless intelligence coming for our jobs without asking uncomfortable questions of the very human institutions deciding how that intelligence will be used.
Maybe the future isn’t simply a choice between embracing AI and resisting it. Maybe there is another question worth asking: What obligations do people have to one another when technology makes people less economically necessary?
I don’t know the answer. I don’t think anyone does.
I am enormously optimistic about AI. I believe it can make us more creative, productive, capable, and perhaps even more human by freeing us from work that consumes our time without making good use of our abilities.
But technology doesn’t determine our values. It amplifies them.
That’s why I find myself less concerned about what AI might eventually be capable of doing than what human beings might decide they’re justified in doing with it.
The future of work won’t simply be created by artificial intelligence.
It will be created by us.
*Note: In the spirit of the topic, AI was used as a collaborative tool in developing and refining this piece, as well as creating the accompanying image. The ideas, perspective, and final editorial decisions are my own.
Leave a comment