The Pew Research Center last week published the findings of a survey of technology experts on an issue that’s generated a substantial amount of discussion recently: Whether current advances in automation will create or replace jobs.
Pew, together with Elon University’s Imagining the Internet Center,
collected responses from 1,896 “targeted experts” to answer this question:
Will networked, automated, artificial intelligence (AI) applications and robotic devices have displaced more jobs than they have created by 2025?
Respondents were also asked how disruptive
advances in automation might be, economically and socially.
(I’ve addressed these
questions myself a few times over the past year, first in a blog post pegged to
the ambitions of a robot hamburger maker named Momentum Machines, and later in a
two-part discussion/debate on O’Reilly
Radar.)
Respondents to the Pew survey were almost
equally divided between those who believe that by 2025 “robots and digital
agents” will displace significant numbers of blue- and white-collar workers,
and those who believe that by 2025 automation will not displace more jobs than
it creates. The percentages were 48% in favor of the “will displace” option and
52% in favor of the “won’t displace” option, a split that says a lot about how clearly
we’re able to foresee where our technologies are taking us. (Which doesn’t
relieve us of the responsibility of trying.)
The authors of Pew’s survey emphasize that
these results should not be mistaken for a poll. It’s a non-random sample – they
call it a “canvassing” – that represents only the views of those who answered
the questions. What Pew doesn’t say is that not all of those expressing opinions
seem to possess any genuine expertise on the subject at hand. Also not
mentioned is the fact that not all of their answers make much sense.
I've read through the report so you don't have to. Here are some of the comments I found
especially interesting, or annoying, in a variety of categories:
Single smartest comment. John Markoff, senior writer for the Science section of the New York Times, addressed the “will displace” or “won’t displace” options offered by Pew: “You didn’t allow the answer that I feel strongly is accurate," he said. "—too hard to predict.”
Single smartest comment. John Markoff, senior writer for the Science section of the New York Times, addressed the “will displace” or “won’t displace” options offered by Pew: “You didn’t allow the answer that I feel strongly is accurate," he said. "—too hard to predict.”
Bob
Ubell, vice dean
for online learning at New York University, made the same point. “The history of technological advances can go either way," he said. "In some
economic transitions, technological innovation can spur economic growth,
creating vast new industries, with large new worker populations; but in other
periods, technological advances can have the opposite effect, causing older
industries to shed millions of workers. It’s far too soon to tell.”
Hal Varian |
Magical Thinking. For centuries technological enthusiasts have promised that our machines will free us from drudgery, giving us the time to do all
the creative, wonderful things we’ve always wanted to do. Hal Varian, chief economist for Google, told Pew he believes that promise is closer than ever to being fulfilled.
As it has in the past, Varian says, technology will continue to
eliminate "dull, repetitive, and unpleasant" jobs – he cites as examples the
dishwasher, the clothes washer, and the vacuum cleaner – in the process producing a “more equitable distribution of labor and leisure time.”
What Varian fails to mention is that
technology has also helped make other jobs more
dull, repetitive, and unpleasant. Testimony on that score can be gleaned from generations
of factory workers and, more recently, from customer service representatives in any
number of industries, from retail to public utilities to health care. Varian also seems not to have noticed that in the digital era the
distribution of labor and leisure has become anything but “more equitable.” Abundant evidence suggests that exactly the opposite is true.
Tom Standage |
This
point was addressed in Pew's survey by Tom Standage, digital editor for The Economist. Previous technological revolutions unfolded more
slowly than current advances in automation are expected to, he wrote, giving
workers more time to adjust. We're already seeing growing numbers of people moving
by necessity from higher-skilled jobs to lower-paying service sector jobs. The
widening disparity in incomes these shifts are creating, Standage said, “is a
recipe for instability.”
Another of Varian’s claims bears examination. We’re all working less
now than we once did, he says. “The work week has fallen from 70 hours a week
to about 37 hours now, and I expect that it will continue to fall. This is what
has been going on for the last 300 years so I see no reason that it will stop
in the decade.”
It’s possible that Varian has enough integrity to acknowledge, were
more space available for elaboration, that experts in other fields would
dispute those numbers; some have argued that members of so-called “primitive”
societies worked only a few hours a day. Regardless of who you believe, I
personally encounter very few people who say they’re less stressed today than
they were ten years ago. Again, exactly the
opposite is true.
Daren Brabham
|
A more credible comment on this issue, in my judgment (and I
acknowledge my own bias on this score), came from Pew respondent Daren C. Brabham, assistant professor at the Annenberg
School for Communication & Journalism, University of Southern California.
“It is a long-standing sci-fi fantasy that someday our advances in
automation/AI/robots will make human labor obsolete and allow us to live
happier, healthier lives of leisure,” he said. “That has never proven to be
true—we work harder and longer in the U.S. now than we ever have, despite
technological advances.”
Sleight of Hand. Several respondents in Pew’s survey expressed a theory that is common in discussions of this sort, which is that
automation won’t eliminate jobs, but will shift them to other industries. Specific examples aren't usually mentioned, but when they are, the new jobs often seem connected in some fashion to computer programming, mechanical
engineering, artificial intelligence, or related fields. Similarly, when asked
how we can avoid an unemployment crisis in the future, respondents often insist
that education must more effectively train people for just those sorts of jobs.
The advice regarding
educational priorities may be realistic, given that nothing seems likely to
slow the ongoing capitulation of every aspect of contemporary culture to
technique. As far as employment goes, however, few seem to notice that if the job opportunities are shifting toward various forms of automation, those who have well-paid jobs in the future are increasingly likely to be working to find ways to eliminate other people's jobs.
The myopia of
this view can be discerned in the comment of John
Wooten, a consultant whose web site doesn’t make clear exactly who he
works with, or for. Wooten is among those who don't believe automation will
cause a higher rate of job displacement than job creation in the next decade. “Current trends related to automation and
business intelligence tools have surprisingly led to more job creation in the
markets I have been involved with,” he says. “For example, cloud computing has
actually brought greater business necessity for hiring more IT persons, not
less, as the implementation of ‘cloud’ affords IT personnel the ability to
perform functions more critical to the organization as a whole.”
Why it would be surprising that current trends in automation and
business intelligence tools would stimulate a demand for IT personnel, Wooten
doesn’t say.
Amy Webb
|
Another of my
favorite comments in this regard came from Amy
Webb, CEO of the
Webbmedia Group. “Now more than ever,” she said, “an army of talented coders is
needed to help our technology advance.”
The Elephant in the Room. Almost none of the nearly two thousand replies Pew
received make any mention of what I consider the single most important question
about our future, regarding not only jobs but our survival. I refer to climate
change. If automation is going to be as significant a social and economic factor in the coming decades as many of these respondents believe it will be, then some mention of the ways in which it might impact global warming would seem to make sense. Not so in this discussion: a search for the word “climate” in the full report turned up
no hits.
Mike Roberts, a member of the Internet Hall of Fame and first president of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, referred to climate change indirectly, in the context of labor and equitability. Electronic and human avatars, he said, will be competing for jobs within years, not decades. "The situation is exacerbated by the total failure of the electronics community to address to any serious degree sustainability issues that are destroying the modern 'consumerist' model and undermining the early 20th century notion of 'a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.' There is great pain down the road for everyone as new realities are addressed. The only question is how soon."
Mike Roberts, a member of the Internet Hall of Fame and first president of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, referred to climate change indirectly, in the context of labor and equitability. Electronic and human avatars, he said, will be competing for jobs within years, not decades. "The situation is exacerbated by the total failure of the electronics community to address to any serious degree sustainability issues that are destroying the modern 'consumerist' model and undermining the early 20th century notion of 'a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.' There is great pain down the road for everyone as new realities are addressed. The only question is how soon."
Mike Roberts
|
When we're ready. Geoff Livingston is a marketing expert who, whether he knows
it or not, shares the views of the social constructionists. “I see the movement
towards AI and robotics as evolutionary, in large part because it is such a
sociological leap,” he says. “The technology may be ready, but we are not—at
least, not yet.”
I myself lean toward a determinist position
(admittedly the minority view these days) and tend to believe that technologies
will be introduced and adopted not so much when “we” are "ready" but
when they're available and when it's to the advantage of a few individuals or
groups to introduce them. We might be more ready to accept dishwashers and
vacuum cleaners, for example, than we are robo calls and strip mining. Robo
calls and strip mining are with us nonetheless. We also may think we're ready for a technology, only to realize, once it's become embedded in the culture, that we weren't as ready as we thought. Cars come to mind.
Larry Gell
|
Larry
Gell, founder and director of the International Agency for Economic Development, discussed the readiness question in his response to Pew. “After 50+ years working
for the heads of the world’s biggest corporations all over the globe,” he wrote,
“—watching them cut costs every place starting with the biggest cost: PEOPLE;
moving labor to cheapest markets, then replacing them as fast as possible with
robots and automation—why would it stop? It will accelerate. Anything and
everything that can be automated to replace humans will be done. You can bet on
it!”
Technology isn’t destiny?
Think again. The readiness question relates to a rather glib “point of agreement” that Pew’s
authors say was expressed by partisans of both the “will displace” and “won’t displace”
sides of the automation/jobs issue: “Technology is not destiny…we control the future we will
inhabit.”
The authors elaborate:
In the end, a number of these experts took pains to note that none of these potential outcomes—from the most utopian to most dystopian—are etched in stone. Although technological advancement often seems to take on a mind of its own, humans are in control of the political, social, and economic systems that will ultimately determine whether the coming wave of technological change has a positive or negative impact on jobs and employment.
Okay, it's hard to argue with that statement. Literally it's true that we can simply turn off our machines. Practically, though,
it’s not that easy. If you think we’re
in control of our technologies, try doing away with some of them and see what
happens.
There’s no better example of this than the lack of meaningful response
by governments, businesses, and individuals around the world to global warming. We know that unless we find ways
to substantially lower emissions of greenhouse gases, warming trends already
underway will produce, in the foreseeable future, climatic (and therefore
economic and social) results that are nothing short of catastrophic. The
scientific consensus on this is overwhelming, yet to date the nations of the
world have failed to demonstrate a willingness to take anything close to
adequate steps to address the problem. Why? Because we're so utterly committed
to the technologies that are killing us that we're unable to bring ourselves
to abandon them, or even to significantly moderate our use of them.
We’re stuck, in other words, unless we can find some sort of
technological fix for the problem, a fix that in the process of saving the
environment would almost certainly alter it in unforeseen ways.
So, despite the “point of agreement” of Pew’s respondents, technology is destiny, and we are not able to control the future we
inhabit.* True, conceivably it is within our power to use automation techniques sensibly, taking into account the needs of working people to earn a living. But, as Larry Gell said, past experience tells us it is unlikely that we will do so, and it will become steadily less likely as businesses and economies invest in those techniques. The dynamics of technological momentum predict that investment becomes commitment.
In short, we can't say for sure what will happen, but it will take a tremendous amount of political and social will to modify the directions in which our technologies are leading us.
In short, we can't say for sure what will happen, but it will take a tremendous amount of political and social will to modify the directions in which our technologies are leading us.
* What I’m discussing in this
section is the question of “technological autonomy.” I’ve written a number of
blog posts on that subject. Examples can be found here, here, here, and here.
©Doug Hill, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment