Should, but not likely - On the use of AI and how that will impact the future of work
Pretty soon, it might be Only Fans or heavy manual labor for large swaths of the rising generations. AI is poised to destroy many if not most of the pathways to middle class livelihoods
I am keeping more than one eye on the phenomenon of AI, and I keep looking for takes that feel like what I think will happen. A few weeks ago, I read from Cory Doctorow where he highlighted that the good use case is as an augmentation to help improve the productivity and throughput of skilled workers. This is a “value add” where managers invest in AI tools to improve the lives of their workers, benefiting the business with more velocity. Bue he also pointed out that the more likely use was to employ generative AI to hollow out their staff, and reduce the labor cost inputs to the business.
To me, this is the most likely situation, and all indications is that this view of capital will be the winner.
Then today, in the NY Times, one of their business writers writes A.I. Should Be a Tool, Not a Curse, for the Future of Work.
If you read on the future of work in general, this article is jam packed with some of the most recognizable names in the field (I always look for David Autor from MIT, he is always a go to) and the prognosis is not good.
The passage that seems to embody this is:
Zeynep Ton, a professor of the practice in M.I.T.’s Sloan School of Management who is a co-founder of the Good Jobs Institute, said many workers are stuck in a “vicious cycle of poverty” in which they don’t earn enough, don’t get enough sleep, have to work multiple jobs and don’t end up performing well in any of them. She pointed to companies such as Costco and QuikTrip, a chain of convenience stores based in Tulsa, Okla., that have taken the high road, designing jobs that pay more while expecting more of employees. Artificial intelligence hasn’t reached those companies in a big way yet, of course.
If taking the high road is such a good idea, why don’t more companies do it, Ton asked rhetorically. Some of it is lack of awareness and some is that getting it right means changing many things at once, from human resources to marketing to strategy, she said. But when everything comes together, she said, worker empowerment is powerful.
Acemoglu expressed doubt that business leaders would take the high road toward better jobs on their own. And Simon Johnson, the third co-director of the initiative, who teaches entrepreneurship in the M.I.T. Sloan School, concluded the day by saying his image of the future is “a little bit darker and a little more urgent” that what he heard at the event.
I am not too hopeful of the high road being chosen.
Final note
The newsletter linked above (by Peter Coy of the NY Times) has a snippet by the aforementioned David Autor, a titan in the field – if you research the topic of the future of work, you can’t avoid his papers and scholarly writing – seems to be rather weak on unions to help ensure workers rights and dignity:
David Autor, an M.I.T. economist who is also a co-director of the new initiative, said that federal law turns union organizing into “trench warfare,” fought out one workplace at a time. He said he favors sectoral bargaining, in which unions negotiate with representatives of entire industrial sectors.
The “sectoral bargaining” is pretty weak sauce, and something that elevates the power of capital over labor in areas that are desperately in need of organization of labor like “tech”.
Oh well, more evidence that AI is gonna fuck up all our shit.