In the field of AI, there’s a fair amount of attention related to the battle between those experts known as "doomers" and those who like to call themselves "accelerationists."
At one end of the spectrum are the doomers, those who believe that AI is an existential threat to humanity, and that everything’s going to end badly for all of us. Additionally, they tend to believe that even before the world ends in a cataclysmic, AI-driven catastrophe, AI will take all our jobs and everything else.
And 180 degrees away from the doomers you’ll find the accelerationists, who don’t think we should put any roadblocks in the way of achieving AGI, or artificial general intelligence. The accelerationists adamantly believe that AI will lead us to a new world of milk and honey, and that any negative consequences along the way are certain to be just minor inconveniences, or at least, well worth it in the end.
However, many discussions of the doomers and the accelerationists leave out an important point: While the accelerationists may outnumber their rivals by 3:1, both groups are relatively small (approximately 15% and 5%, respectively), with some 80% of AI experts placing themselves somewhere between the two extremes, according to a survey of "notable" AI researchers that came out early this year.
The fact that those on the extremes are far outnumbered by those in the middle is a good thing to remember, as it carries over to other AI discussions and disputes, as well.
For example, the issue of the effects of AI on the workplace and jobs is one that has been getting a lot of attention. Some believe AI’s abilities are overhyped and that its effects on jobs will be minimal because, “Well, just look at how often it hallucinates! There’s no way that AI could take my job!” At the other end of the spectrum are those concerned that just within the next few years, AI will take the jobs of the majority of knowledge workers, and that everyone else's jobs won't be far behind.
However, back here on Earth One, the truth is likely to be found somewhere between the two. In this case, that means somewhere between the adamant denial of AI’s capabilities, both current and near future, on the one hand, and the belief that soon there will be no jobs left for humans on the other.
So, what’s going to happen? There *will* be job losses, and they may be significant, especially in some sectors. But we are also likely to see an evolution of existing jobs in which the adept use of AI is essential. Additionally, it's more than probably that many new jobs will appear – just as they did after the web exploded in the 1990s – and their large numbers, interesting variety, and surprising demands for creativity may astonish a good number of people.
However, here’s the problem: Despite all the talk about how companies must commit to retraining their employees for this new age of AI, far too many of these retraining efforts have been ineffective. As The Atlantic has pointed out, "Federal retraining programs remain rooted in the industrial era in which they were created."
“Retraining is held up as some sort of savior to displaced workers,” said one expert in the field. “But without a specific job at the other end, no one is going to waste their time retraining just to retrain.” Strong words, and hopefully companies and government programs can do better going forward. But strikingly, the data tell us that tech is one of the sectors that’s had the greatest number of recent layoffs. Yes, they’re hiring AI experts, but if you’re not one of those, your days may be numbered.
Now, that would be kind of crazy in a world where “retraining” was an actual practice, right? We’re not talking about turning circus clowns into AI developers, after all – we’re talking about retraining coders to do the next big thing in the coding world. But, instead, companies are letting them go.
So, where does that leave all the workers who are not AI-ready? In two camps, as usual. But this time, these groups might be thought of as those who are going to be left behind at the station and those who have a first-class ticket on the bullet train.
What’s going to determine where someone ends up? As much as anything else, it’s going to be based on how they, as individuals, react to the world as it changes around them. Do they decide that AI cheapens their work, or that it's not what they went to college for, or that it’s just too hard to learn? Or, do they take a cue from more than a few workers in Hollywood?
An interesting Labor Day article in the L.A. Times discusses how some voice actors, film editors, costume designers, and cinematographers are actively taking classes to figure out how they can fit into the reality of AI’s ever-growing presence in Hollywood. And yes, that rising tide of AI is taking place despite the four-month writers' strike in early 2023 and the settlement that appeared to be a win for the workers.
But that win feels like a long time ago. And AI keeps coming. However, that's not a recommendation to simply give up. As the Hollywood workers profiled in the L.A. Times story made clear, one cannot rely on collective action or even signed agreements to save one's career in the face of AI. This battle will be won or lost individually.
As one Hollywood advisor to voice actors said, “Most of them have moved from, ‘This is going to put us out of a job’ to ‘This isn’t going anywhere. How do we figure out a way in which I can develop my career … using AI?’”
The article is titled “Get to know your enemy.” With the caveat that I don’t recommend thinking of AI as your enemy, that’s nonetheless good advice for everyone.
