I am quite cautious about the current discourse on the impact of artificial intelligence on employment. On the one hand, I can’t give in to the ultra-pessimistic discourse that promises us the widespread replacement of humans by AI (AI and jobs: why I don’t believe in the “great replacement” of humans by machines), but I don’t believe any more in the reassuring discourse that tells us that thanks to AI, all jobs will evolve towards something more fulfilling, towards more noble activities.
We are told that it will free up time for activities with a higher human value: more creative, more relational, more “meaningful” and frankly I cannot tell if this discourse is sincere or if it is just meant to reassure us.
The promise of “impact jobs” is a fine promise, but I fear that in this matter we are showing nAIvety that does not take economic reality into account.
In short :
- AI will not result in the total replacement of humans, nor in a generalized shift towards more fulfilling jobs.
- It is part of an economic logic of reducing costs and simplifying organizations.
- Any position that can be automated can potentially be eliminated, with no guarantee of requalification.
- “Meaningful” jobs are rare, difficult to access, often not solvent and will not be enough to compensate for the losses.
- The central question becomes that of the place of each individual in a society where work no longer structures inclusion.
Automating means rationalizing
We can philosophize as much as we like, but as far as I can remember, I have never seen a philosopher running a business or this subject being brought up in a management committee when strategic and, above all, economic decisions have to be made.
In fact, as soon as a job can be automated, that job becomes questionable.
And as soon as a redundancy becomes legally or operationally acceptable, it becomes probable.
This is not ideology but simple economic logic.
AI, like any automation technology before it, is not neutral. It is part of a logic of reducing costs, maximizing productivity and simplifying organizations.
And this logic entails trade-offs: job cuts, restructuring and, indeed, sometimes requalification, but not always.
Once again, I am not saying that AI will make all jobs disappear, but that all those that can disappear will disappear.
Moreover, we are already seeing the first effects: the CEO of Shopify sent a memo to his employees saying that no more recruitment budget would be authorized until it is proven that an AI could not do the job (Shopify is saying the quiet part out loud: AI will replace new hiring—other CEOs just won’t admit it).
Let’s be a little wary, though: we’ve seen businesses like Klarna fire employees to replace them with AIs and backtrack: “We just had an epiphany: in a world of AI nothing will be as valuable as humans! Ok you can laugh at us for realizing it so late, but we are going to kick off work to allow Klarna to become the best at offering a human to speak to!!!“
Not everyone will have a “meaningful” job
In the face of this, there is often opposition to the promise of meaningful jobs. The idea that, freed from thankless tasks, humans will be able to devote themselves to meaningful activities, that AI will free up time for activities with greater human value: more creative, more relational, more “meaningful”.
But certain things are forgotten, either out of enthusiasm or on purpose.
First of all, these jobs are rarely scalable. You don’t create 100,000 craft jobs overnight, and you still need them.
Secondly, they are not all solvent. Even if they were needed, not everyone would pay for support services.
Finally, they are not accessible to everyone. Not everyone has the skills or talent to do them, not to mention the appetite for these activities or the ability to accept or endure certain working conditions.
Not everyone will become a therapist, craftsman, philosopher or coach.
And in any case, all the “impact” or “connection” jobs will not be enough to absorb the millions of jobs made obsolete by technology.
We are not talking here about transitional unemployment but a structural excess of human availability in the face of a shortage of activities considered “useful” or “necessary”.
Bottom line
Perhaps the real question is not “how will AI transform work”, but “what becomes of work when it no longer guarantees everyone a place in society?”
What do we do if full employment becomes an unattainable goal, how do we value those who no longer work in the usual sense of the term, do we need to rethink the notions of social utility, income, status and who decides what is “meaningful”, and for whom (The challenges posed by AI are not technological, but must be met today.)?
Are we moving towards a golden age of welfare (Towards a golden age of welfare and precariousness?), a civilization of idleness (AI in the workplace: avoiding the Wall-E effect) or leisure activities (The goal of the future is full unemployment, so we can play)? Do we need to invent something else?
Technological progress is not just a question of adaptation, but forces us to reconsider our fundamentals: work, usefulness, recognition, everyone’s place.
But to open this fundamental debate, we must start by ceasing to be nAIve.
Image: artificial intelligence by Art Gallery – stock.adobe.com
