Did the remarkable technological achievements that made life easier for so many people simultaneously destroy jobs and wreak havoc on the economy? From 1930 until 1948 he served as president of MIT and was one of the leading scientists of the time. Carl T. Compton, in his December 1938 issue of this publication, wrote “Technological Unemployment''. I am writing about “Bogie”.
How should we think about the debate over technological unemployment, or the loss of jobs due to industrial obsolescence, the use of machines to replace workers, or increases in per capita output, Compton asked? I started talking. Then he asked the following question: “Are machines genies that spring from Aladdin's lamp of science and satisfy every human need and desire, or are they Frankenstein's monsters that destroy the humans who created them?'' I'm just going to try to summarize the situation as I see it,'' he said, indicating he intended to take a more grounded view.
His essay succinctly framed the debate about jobs and technological advancement in a way that remains relevant today, especially given today's concerns about the impact of artificial intelligence. Recent impressive advances in generative AI, smart robots, and self-driving cars have once again caused many to worry that advanced technology will replace human workers, reducing overall labor demand. I am. Some of Silicon Valley's leading techno-optimists even posit that we are heading toward a jobless future where AI will do everything for us.
While today's technology certainly looks quite different from that of the 1930s, Compton's article points out that concerns about the future of employment are not new and, rather than invoking genies or monsters, are is a valuable reminder that it can best be addressed by applying an understanding of
uneven impact
Compton made a clear distinction between the effects of technological advances on the “industry as a whole” and the often painful effects on individuals.
“For the industry as a whole,” he concluded, “technical unemployment is a myth.” That's because technology has “created so many new industries” and expanded the market for many items by “lowering production costs and making them affordable to a large number of buyers,” he said. insisted. In other words, advances in technology have created more jobs overall. This debate, and the question of whether it remains true, remains relevant in the age of AI.
Compton then abruptly shifts perspective and says that for some workers and communities, “technological unemployment is very important, like towns where factories are forced to close, or crafts are replaced by new arts.” “This could be a serious social problem.” ”
Even those who agreed that jobs would return “in the long term” were concerned that “displaced wage earners will have to eat and take care of their families 'in the short term'.”
This analysis reconciled the promise of the benefits of progress and innovation with the surrounding reality that millions of people are out of work. Compton, a physicist, was the first chairman of the Scientific Advisory Committee established by Franklin D. Roosevelt, and prefaced his 1938 essay with a report that the Scientific Advisory Committee submitted to the president in 1935. Quoted from. No intelligent person would deny that science is necessary for its maintenance and future improvement. ”
Compton's claim that technological advances led to a net increase in employment was not without controversy.according to new york times Compton, in an article written in 1940 by prominent labor journalist Louis Stark, after the president told Congress, “We have not yet found a way to employ the surplus labor created by the efficiency of industrial processes.” had a “clash” with President Roosevelt. ”
The problem, as Stark explained, is that “technological advances by increasing the efficiency of industrial processes[s] Jobs are lost faster than they are created. ” Mr. Stark reported that he had recently collected data on significant productivity gains from new machinery and production processes in a variety of sectors, including the cigar, rubber, and textile industries. In theory, as Mr. Compton argued, that would mean offering more goods at lower prices, and in theory, this would increase demand for these cheaper products, leading to increased employment. Leads to. But, as Stark explained, the concern was “how quickly increased productivity will lead to lower prices and increased demand.”
As Mr. Stark noted, even those who agree that jobs will recover “in the long run” say that “displaced wage earners have to eat and take care of their families 'in the short run'.” was concerned.
With the outbreak of World War II, employment opportunities were soon not in short supply. However, work problems continued. Indeed, although it has waxed and waned over the decades depending on the health of the economy, fears about technological unemployment have never gone away.
Automation and AI
Lessons for the current AI era can be drawn not only from the 1930s but also from the early 1960s. Unemployment was high. Some influential thinkers of the time argued that automation and rapid productivity growth would outpace the demand for labor. In 1962, MIT Technology Review Robert Solow, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist who won the Nobel Prize in 1987 for explaining the role of technology in economic growth and died late last year at age 99, discusses the fallacy of panic in his essay. I tried to expose it.
In a paper titled “Problems That Don't Worry Me,'' Mr. Solow ridiculed the idea that automation is leading to mass unemployment. From 1947 to 1960, productivity grew at an annual rate of about 3%, he said. “It's nothing to sneeze at, but it's not a revolution,” he wrote. The lack of a major productivity boom meant there was no evidence of a second industrial revolution, with the “threat of catastrophic unemployment”. But, like Mr. Compton, Mr. Solow acknowledged that rapid technological change presents a different kind of problem. He said, “Certain types of labor can become obsolete and suddenly fall in price in the market, and the human costs can be very high.”
Recently, there has been panic surrounding artificial intelligence and other advanced digital technologies. Like the 1930s and his early 1960s, the early 2010s were a time of high unemployment. This is because the economy was struggling to recover from the financial crisis of 2007 and 2009. This era was also a time when remarkable new technologies were introduced. Smartphones suddenly became ubiquitous. Social media has started to become popular. We got a glimpse of breakthrough advances in driverless cars and AI. Are these advances related to weaker demand for labor? Do they portend a future of unemployment?
Again, the discussion developed on the following pages. MIT Technology Review. In an article I titled “How Technology is Destroying Jobs,” economist Erik Brynjolfsson and his colleague Andrew McAfee argue that technological changes create more jobs than they do. He claimed that jobs are disappearing quickly. This wasn't just about factory closures. Rather, advanced digital technologies were leading to job losses across large swaths of the economy, and fears of technological unemployment were once again rising.
Like the 1930s and early 1960s, the early 2010s were a time of high unemployment.
It is difficult to pinpoint a single cause for a problem as complex as the decline in aggregate employment. It could simply be due to slower economic growth. However, it was becoming increasingly clear, both in data and in everyday observations, that new technologies were changing the types of jobs in demand. It wasn't new, but the scope of the transition was problematic, and so was its speed. It was happening. Industrial robots have displaced many well-paying manufacturing jobs in places like the Rust Belt, and now AI and other digital technologies are relegating them to clerical and office jobs and even, feared, truck driving. It is becoming more and more.
In his farewell speech before leaving office in January 2017, President Barack Obama said, “The relentless march of automation is making many of the good jobs of the middle class obsolete.'' By then, it was clear that Compton's optimism needed to be reconsidered. Technological advances did not lead to inevitable job growth, and the pain was not confined to a few specific locations or industries.
Why Musk is wrong
Late last year, in an interview with British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, Elon Musk declared that a time would come when “you won't need a job” thanks to AI's “magical genie that can do whatever you want.” Musk added that as a result, “we won't have a universal basic income, but we will have a universal high income.” This apparently answers Compton's rhetorical question about whether machines will become “genies who satisfy every human need and desire.''
may not be possible prove Mr. Musk was wrong because he did not provide a timeline for his utopian predictions. In any case, how do you refute the power of magical genies? But the end-of-work meme is a distraction as we explore how best to use AI to expand the economy and create new jobs.
Breakthroughs in generative AI, such as ChatGPT and other large-scale language models, have the potential to transform economies and labor markets. But there is no convincing evidence that we are on the path to an unemployed future. To paraphrase Thoreau, when there is something to worry about, you should worry about it.
Even a bullish estimate of the impact of generative AI by Goldman Sachs estimates that the impact on productivity growth over the next 10 years will be approximately 1.5% per year. As Mr. Thoreau said, that's nothing to sneeze at, but it doesn't eliminate the need for workers. A Goldman Sachs report estimates that about two-thirds of U.S. jobs are “exposed to some degree of automation through AI.” However, this conclusion is often misunderstood. This conclusion does not mean that all these jobs will be replaced. Rather, as the Goldman Sachs report points out, most of these positions are “only partially automated.” For many of these workers, AI will become part of their workday and will not necessarily lead to their termination.
The end-of-work meme is a distraction as we explore how best to use AI to expand the economy and create new jobs.
One key wildcard is how many new jobs will be created by AI, even if existing ones are eliminated. Such job creation is notoriously difficult to estimate. But MIT's David Orter and his colleagues recently calculated that 60% of jobs in 2018 were in job types that didn't exist before 1940. One reason innovation has created so many new jobs is because it increases worker productivity and improves worker capabilities. Increase your abilities and expand your possibilities to perform new tasks. The bad news: This job creation is offset by the labor-destroying effects of automation if it is used simply to replace workers. As Autor and his co-authors conclude, one of the key questions now is “is automation appropriate?” To accelerateAs many researchers and policy makers are concerned, it is related to expansion. ”
In recent decades, companies have frequently turned to AI and advanced automation to reduce headcount and costs. There is no economic law that says innovation actually promotes augmentation and job creation more than this kind of automation. But we have options going forward. Technology can be used to simply replace workers, or it can be used to expand their skills and abilities, leading to economic growth and new jobs.
One of the enduring strengths of Compton's 1938 essay was his argument that corporations should take responsibility for limiting the pain of technological transitions. His proposals included “interindustry collaboration in the community to synchronize layoffs at one company and new hires at another.” That may sound outdated in today's global economy. But the underlying sentiment remains relevant. “In this matter, as in others, the basic criterion for good management is that the primary motive must not be immediate profit, but the best ultimate service to the public. be.”
As AI companies gain unprecedented power and wealth, they must also take greater responsibility for how their technology impacts workers. Invoking a magical genie to explain the inevitable future of unemployment doesn't work. We can choose how AI defines the future of work.
