I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords
I've been called a Luddite. It's a word that's often misused. Some use it to describe technological ineptitude. Or a fear of technological progress. I actually love technology. I am impatient and frequently annoyed with it. But I am typically a happy adopter.
But I am a Luddite. What the luddites actually feared was how technology could be applied. How it could cause unemployment and economic and social upheaval. Jesus, is this article going to get radical? Let's see.
The first time I saw an ordering screen in McDonalds I thought, "oh shit". There are hundreds of millions of service workers whose function might be replaced by technology in the next ten years. Humans have always tried to get in the way of this 'progress' (see Luddites above) so change tends to happen slowly. It's not always the workers themselves that resist the change. Often it's the beneficiaries of a particular service. We humans are uncomfortable with change.
These upheavals have rarely impacted the livelihoods of 'professionals'. But today, artificial intelligence represents a new threat to the 'creative class' (per the Richard Florida definition). What happens to us. Will we be replaced? Or will AI make us better at our jobs. Will we go the way of the elevator operator or the airline pilot?
I love the idea that there was a time when people couldn't conceive of operating an elevator on their own. The automatic elevator was invented in 1900. It was terrifying to passengers. A metal box hurtling through the air without a pilot? It took fifty years and an elevator workers strike that paralyzed New York, before humans came to accept them.
I also love the fact that Oregon only passed a law this year permitting self serve gas stations. Yes, in Oregon, gas station attendants were considered irreplaceable until THIS YEAR. This is a real comment made on a local TV station's facebook poll about the issue:
“I've lived in this state all my life and I REFUSE to pump my own gas. I had to do it once in California while visiting my brother and almost died doing it. This a service only qualified people should perform. I will literally park at the pump and wait until someone pumps my gas. I can't even”
Did this anecdote about Oregon further my point? No. Is this still one of the funniest things I've ever read, hence I couldn't resist including it? Yes.
Having a human at the controls is reassuring. For several years elevator operators just pressed the buttons for you. While airplanes are increasingly flown by computers, we seem pretty resistant to removing their human 'operators'. Of course, perhaps that could change in the wake of COVID (Don't click this link if you're a nervous flyer).
There's one group of humans that doesn't get so nervous about applying technology. Those in 'charge'.
Business leaders see technological innovation as a panacea. Workers will be transformed. They tell us how much more efficient technology is going to make us. How much better our work-life balance will be. Really they are focused on all the costs technology will allow them to eliminate. CEOs smell shareholder value!
The idea of a near-future where we would replace human controlled cars with driverless ones helped build up Uber's initial valuations (a little lustre has been removed from this idea, especially in a commute-lite future. Perhaps coincidentally Uber just sold their autonomous driving division. I know, there's food delivery, shipping etc. still. Don't @ me.) Those valuations forgot about us annoying human roadblocks. We've gotten in the way of these driverless cars both figuratively and literally.
The premise of replacing pesky humans appears to be good business. Replacing highly paid 'creative class' workers is even better business. Perhaps we 'professional service providers' will be the first to go. I'd imagine many a client would love to replace their ad agency, lawyers, or research company with a reliable, automated solution, backed by a bulletproof data-based guarantee. Who's going to stand in the way of that?
Replacing these types of workers relies on AI advancement. AI is pretty popular these days. Just add it to your business name and you'll generate a fair bit of interest. To replace us completely, AI would need to learn the creative aspects of these jobs. That's the important work of these professionals. Not creative always. But things like, a novel approach to an issue. Complex problem solving. New ideas. Can AI do that? Will it replace us, or like airline pilots will we just become much better at our jobs?
I believe there are five steps involved in idea generation (or 'creativity'). Gather. Connect. Incubate. Evaluate. Sell.
Gather. This is the process of collecting information relevant to the issue you are trying to solve. Hmm... feels like AI would be pretty good at this.
Connect. This is finding connections between these raw pieces of information. Again, AI could probably find all kinds of sinews of connectivity we'd never dream of.
Incubate. Your mind passively working towards an idea. AI will be able to do this in a nanosecond. Uh oh...
Evaluate. What ideas are good and worth presenting. Here's the hiccup. AI will need evaluation criteria. That criteria will be based on what's worked in the past. The criteria will presumably evolve as new data is collected. But, if the AI is originally programmed based on the past, will it ever be able to innovate beyond those parameters? Will it be stuck in an echo chamber of the past. OR... if it can innovate and create novel ideas will those ideas be so new and unfamiliar that we mere humans will be unable to recognize their potential? This is where my brain explodes. And it's likely where we humans will get in the way again.
But... there is one role we humans may not stand in the way of replacing. One that is truly ruled by shareholder value. A role focused not on creating ideas, but making the best selection based on the available information and options. This is the role for AI!
The CEO.
Kill all the managers. Replace them with sentient robot overlords. Revolution! See, it got radical.