If you wanted relief from stories about tire factories and steel plants closing, you could try relaxing with a new 300-page report from Bank of America Merrill Lynch (BOA), which looks at the likely effects of a robot revolution.
However, you might not end up reassured. Though it promises robot carers for an aging population, it also forecasts huge numbers of jobs being wiped out: up to 35 percent of all workers in the UK and 47 percent of those in the US, including white-collar jobs, seeing their livelihoods taken away by machines.
Have not we heard all this before, though? From the luddites of the 19th century to print unions protesting in the 1980s about computers, there have always been people fearful about the march of mechanization. And yet we keep on creating new job categories.
However, there are still concerns that the combination of artificial intelligence (AI) — which is able to make logical inferences about its surroundings and experience — married to ever-improving robotics, would wipe away entire swaths of work and radically reshape society.
“The poster child for automation is agriculture,” says Calum Chace, author of Surviving AI and the novel Pandora’s Brain. “In 1900, 40 percent of the US labor force worked in agriculture. By 1960, the figure was a few percent. And yet people had jobs; the nature of the jobs had changed.
“But then again, there were 21 million horses in the US in 1900. By 1960, there were just 3 million. The difference was that humans have cognitive skills — we could learn to do new things. But that might not always be the case as machines get smarter and smarter.”
HORSES AND HUMANS
What if we are the horses to AI’s humans? To those who do not watch the industry closely, it is hard to see how quickly the combination of robotics and artificial intelligence is advancing.
Last week, a team from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) released a video showing a tiny drone flying through a lightly forested area at 48km per hour, avoiding the trees — all without a pilot, using only its onboard processors. Of course it can outrun a human-piloted one.
MIT has also built a “robot cheetah” which can jump over obstacles of up to 40cm without help. Add to that the standard progress of computing, where processing power doubles roughly every 18 months, and you can see why people like Chace are getting worried.
However, the incursion of AI into our daily life would not begin with robot cheetahs. In fact, it began long ago; the edge is thin, but the wedge is long. Cooking systems with vision processors can decide whether burgers are properly cooked. Restaurants can give customers access to tablets with the menu and let people choose without needing service staff.
Lawyers who used to slog through giant files for the “discovery” phase of a trial can turn it over to a computer. An “intelligent assistant” called Amy would, via e-mail, set up meetings autonomously. Google announced last week that you can get Gmail to write appropriate responses to incoming e-mails. (You still have to act on your responses, of course.)
Further afield, Foxconn, the Taiwanese company that assembles devices for Apple and others, aims to replace much of its workforce with automated systems.
The Associated Press gets news stories written automatically about sports and business by a system developed by Automated Insights. The longer you look, the more you find computers displacing simple work.
PROVIDING SERVICES
So how much impact would robotics and AI have on jobs, and on society? Carl Benedikt Frey, who with Michael Osborne in 2013 published the seminal paper The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerisation? — on which the BOA report draws heavily — says that he does not like to be labeled a “doomsday predictor.”
He said that even while some jobs are replaced, new ones spring up that focus more on services and interaction with and between people.
“The fastest-growing occupations in the past five years are all related to services,” he told the Observer. “The two biggest are Zumba instructor and personal trainer.”
Frey said that technology is leading to a rarification of leading-edge employment, where fewer and fewer people have the necessary skills to work in the front line of its advances.
“In the 1980s, 8.2 percent of the US work force were employed in new technologies introduced in that decade,” he said. “By the 1990s, it was 4.2 percent. For the 2000s, our estimate is that it is just 0.5 percent. That tells me that, on the one hand, the potential for automation is expanding — but also that technology does not create that many new jobs now compared to the past.”
This worries Chace.
“There will be people who own the AI and therefore own everything else,” he said. “Which means homo sapiens will be split into a handful of ‘gods’ and then the rest of us.
“I think our best hope going forward is figuring out how to live in an economy of radical abundance, where machines do all the work and we basically play,” he added.
Arguably, we might be part of the way there already; is a dance fitness program like Zumba anything more than adult play? However, as Chace said, a workless lifestyle also means “you have to think about a universal income” — a basic, unconditional level of state support.
Perhaps the biggest problem is that there has been so little examination of the social effects of AI. Frey and Osborne are contributing to Oxford University’s program on the future impacts of technology; at Cambridge, Observer columnist John Naughton and David Runciman are leading a project to map the social impacts of such change. However, technology moves fast; it is hard enough figuring out what happened in the past, let alone what the future would bring.
Some jobs probably would not be vulnerable. Does Frey, now 31, think that he would still have a job in 20 years’ time? There’s a brief laugh: “Yes.”
Academia, at least, looks safe for now — at least in the view of the academics.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs