Have to admit that I disagree completely. If 'AI' makes employees in coding/finance/law more productive, on a per-person basis - then I expect it to raise wages for the elite practitioners who know how to leverage these tools.
Better tools (AI) tend to reward the most skilled people because the complimentary technology improves their productivity.
I can see entry level positions in things like law, medicine, finance, HR diminishing. But the senior people in these fields are paid for the responsibilities they take on in organizations - so I think their wages will go up as they take on more on a 'per-person' basis.
When the current senior people retire, then what happens? What happens if there are no entry/junior people to fill those spots, because they were all replaced.
I want to clarify. I think there is a very clear issue in the short term and transition time. It is yet to be seen if we can adapt as a society to the accelerating pace of progress in many fronts. Society, as opposed to technology, can be the limiting factor of progress and that is ok.
When I read about the struggles of actors and directors, to cite one example, I am not indifferent.
I just think that there is no problem of no more junior people to learn old skills, they will learn instead new skills.
Yea good point it’s lacking that nuance between senior/entry level. Grouping them together seems intentionally alarmist because they have very different roles
> “Occupations in finance, medicine and legal activities which often require many years of education, and whose core functions rely on accumulated experience to reach decisions, may suddenly find themselves at risk of automation from AI,” said the OECD.
It added that highly skilled occupations were most exposed to AI-powered automation, such as workers in the fields of law, culture, science, engineering and business.
———
I’m not saying that businesses’s bottom lines might not benefit from greater “AI” automation, but the OECD’s take is pretty ridiculous. All of the aforementioned experience ideally culminates in an ability to understand nuance and granular, extremely context dependent, situations.
Which is what I’d imagine would be the absolutely hardest thing to justify simply automating away.
I think the world will just go faster. Faster innovation, faster turnaround. Doing more faster. Which will be great because this world is now running from one urgent crisis into another. We need to be able to react quicker.
I've been working on some business cases for AI and one thing I'm sure of: it's going to cost a lot and it's not going to save us much money directly. It's more of a total game changer.
It's for sure going to change the company. Make us more effective, doing much more with the same resources. It's up to the leadership to translate this to more turnover or get left behind. Because some of our competitors sure will make the most of it.
Of course it's an easy step to use that higher productivity to simply cut personnel. But I think that's not really making the most of this. It's a short sighed bet. It lacks vision and basically aims at keeping the the same, giving up innovating with the rest of the world for some cost savings. The company will do well for a few years financially but then get overtaken quickly by the ones that do have the vision to go all in.
Better tools (AI) tend to reward the most skilled people because the complimentary technology improves their productivity.
I can see entry level positions in things like law, medicine, finance, HR diminishing. But the senior people in these fields are paid for the responsibilities they take on in organizations - so I think their wages will go up as they take on more on a 'per-person' basis.