About once a generation, Harvard economics professor Richard Cooper told a podcast in 2018, “we have a near panic by some people because technology is destroying jobs.”
When I was a child, the worry was described in one word, “automation.” Machines were performing tasks much faster than humans, whose services no longer would be needed.
But the history of this worry goes back much farther, at least to the cotton gin.
“Think of cloth-making back in the early 19th century or automobile-making in the early 20th century,” Cooper said.
“Automobiles, the internal-combustion engine, destroyed a whole industry — the carriages and horses to pull them, right? There were lots of jobs lost as a result of this new technology, an internal-combustion engine on wheels.”
But the often-forgotten lesson from those times is that the new technologies always resulted in many more new jobs.
Of course, that didn’t end the suffering of middle-aged buggy whip makers or the makers of carriages.
Which brings me to artificial intelligence.
The focus right now is on the large data centers this technology relies upon to do its thinking. President Donald Trump recently said these “need some PR help,” which is one statement from the president that won’t get much opposition.
Robots, artificial companions and data centers seem poised, like a tsunami, to wash ashore and upend life as we know it forever.
The flood already has started, and the nation is having a moment, of sorts. Many people seem to be rallying behind opposition to both data centers and AI.
Utah is part of this. Despite the urgings of political leaders, a proposed data center in Box Elder County’s Hansel Valley is opposed by many people in the Beehive State. Legitimate questions about environmental impacts and liabilities abound, and some politicians seem clueless about the need to lead rather than push the issue.
But the script is the same as it has been throughout modern history, with perhaps a troubling caveat or two.
Early in the 20th century, the automobile spawned a host of new careers from manufacturing to car repair to highway construction and long-haul trucking.
The problem, Susan Lund, a partner at the McKinsey Global Institute, based in Washington, told that same podcast is that we can see the people who will be losing jobs, but “we can’t often foresee the new occupations that are going to be created from a technology.”
Personal computers, for instance, made the internet commonplace and eventually led to smartphones, influencers and a huge demand for computer programmers and call center workers. In exchange, “we didn’t need as many typists. We didn’t need as many office-machine manufacturers. Secretaries used to take dictations of memos from executives, using shorthand, and then go type them up. That wasn’t needed with the advent of the personal computer. And increasingly, executives started writing their own memos.”
But the net impact on jobs was positive.
How many jobs will be lost for good because AI can draft memos, instantly turn audio into transcripts, produce analytical spreadsheets and reports, and write persuasive letters?
How many will be displaced if robots can do household chores or provide basic care for the elderly?
The worries are legitimate, but the long-term prognosis is positive.
That’s true even though Lund said that, worldwide, “up to 375 million people may need to learn an entirely new occupation.”
That will require huge efforts toward teaching new skills.
I mentioned a couple of caveats.
Lund and Cooper said previous technological revolutions have transitioned over a decade or two. Horse experts and saddle and buggy makers were still needed for several years after cars were introduced.
AI seems to be approaching with great speed, although its full impact may take many years.
Another is those pesky data centers. At the moment, they are necessary. The United States does not want to fall behind in the race to dominate this new technology, both commercially and for military purposes. But the impacts of these centers on the environment need a thorough vetting, as well as the possibility they might become obsolete.
And finally, this revolution can be used for nefarious purposes, perhaps more than any previous tech revolutions.
As Hari Kunzru wrote recently for artforum.com, “Generative AI now allows the production of disinformation at scale. … Thousands of fake people — tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands — making videos, posting in forums, astroturfing entire contexts in which people will live out their political lives.”
Is this truly a cause for hand-wringing, or an opportunity for entrepreneurs with solutions that could spawn new careers?
History tells us which side to bet on.