Sep 26, 2021 04:05 AM
https://venturebeat.com/2021/09/25/we-ar...nted-work/
INTRO: A recent New York Times article concludes that new AI-powered automation tools such as Codex for software developers will not eliminate jobs but simply be a welcome aid to augment programmer productivity. This is consistent with the argument we’re increasingly hearing that people and AI have different strengths and there will be appropriate roles for each.
As discussed in a Harvard Business Review story: “AI-based machines are fast, more accurate, and consistently rational, but they aren’t intuitive, emotional, or culturally sensitive.” The belief is that “AI plus humans” is something of a centaur, greater than either one operating alone.
This idea of humans plus AI producing better outcomes has become a tenant of faith in technology. Everyone talks about humans being freed up to perform higher-level functions, but no one seems to know just what those high-level functions are, how they translate into real work and jobs, or the number of people needed to perform them.
A corollary of this augmented-workforce narrative is that not only will AI-augmented work enable people to pursue a higher level of abstract thinking, it will — according to some — also lift all of society to a higher standard of living. This is certainly an optimistic vision, and we can hope for that. However, this could also be a story imbued with magical thinking, with the true end-game being fully automated work.
Don’t get me wrong; there is some evidence to support the view that AI will help us work rather than take our jobs. [...] But, of course, some people are more creative than others, meaning that not everyone would benefit from AI-augmented work to the same degree. Which in turn reinforces a concern that AI-fueled automation, even in its augmented work capacity, could widen already existing income disparities.
One problem with the AI-augmented workforce promise is that it tells us AI will only take on the repetitive work we don’t want to do. But not all work being outsourced to AI is routine or boring.
Look no further than the role of the semiconductor chip architect. This is a highly sophisticated profession, an advanced application of electrical engineering in arguably one of the most complex industries. If ever there was a job that might be thought of as immune from AI, this would have been a strong candidate. Yet recent advances from Google and Synopsys (among others using reinforcement learning neural network software) have shown the ability to do in hours what often required a team of engineers months to achieve.
One ever-faithful tech watcher still argued that the algorithms will “optimize and accelerate time-intensive parts of the design process so that designers can focus on making crucial calls that require higher-level decision making.” (MORE)
INTRO: A recent New York Times article concludes that new AI-powered automation tools such as Codex for software developers will not eliminate jobs but simply be a welcome aid to augment programmer productivity. This is consistent with the argument we’re increasingly hearing that people and AI have different strengths and there will be appropriate roles for each.
As discussed in a Harvard Business Review story: “AI-based machines are fast, more accurate, and consistently rational, but they aren’t intuitive, emotional, or culturally sensitive.” The belief is that “AI plus humans” is something of a centaur, greater than either one operating alone.
This idea of humans plus AI producing better outcomes has become a tenant of faith in technology. Everyone talks about humans being freed up to perform higher-level functions, but no one seems to know just what those high-level functions are, how they translate into real work and jobs, or the number of people needed to perform them.
A corollary of this augmented-workforce narrative is that not only will AI-augmented work enable people to pursue a higher level of abstract thinking, it will — according to some — also lift all of society to a higher standard of living. This is certainly an optimistic vision, and we can hope for that. However, this could also be a story imbued with magical thinking, with the true end-game being fully automated work.
Don’t get me wrong; there is some evidence to support the view that AI will help us work rather than take our jobs. [...] But, of course, some people are more creative than others, meaning that not everyone would benefit from AI-augmented work to the same degree. Which in turn reinforces a concern that AI-fueled automation, even in its augmented work capacity, could widen already existing income disparities.
One problem with the AI-augmented workforce promise is that it tells us AI will only take on the repetitive work we don’t want to do. But not all work being outsourced to AI is routine or boring.
Look no further than the role of the semiconductor chip architect. This is a highly sophisticated profession, an advanced application of electrical engineering in arguably one of the most complex industries. If ever there was a job that might be thought of as immune from AI, this would have been a strong candidate. Yet recent advances from Google and Synopsys (among others using reinforcement learning neural network software) have shown the ability to do in hours what often required a team of engineers months to achieve.
One ever-faithful tech watcher still argued that the algorithms will “optimize and accelerate time-intensive parts of the design process so that designers can focus on making crucial calls that require higher-level decision making.” (MORE)