Technology and the Future of Work

A shorter, edited version of this blog was published at -

http://www.cass.city.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2017/march/technology-and-the-future-of-work  

https://www.city.ac.uk/news/2017/march/technology-and-the-future-of-work

I was invited to a Roundtable Discussion on Technology and the Future of Work at a Mayfair hotel, only to discover that it was not so much a roundtable as a rather long table laid out for lunch, with as many as 15 people on each side.  Neither was it a discussion but two short talks, by Tom Standage [@tomstandage] of the Economist, and Chris O’Neil [@croneill], CEO of Evernote, chaired by the ever so charming Malcolm Gooderham [@gooderham].  Amongst the participants were Giles Wilkes [@Gilesyb], a Downing Street Special Policy Advisor; Ravi Mattu [@ravmattu] of the Financial Times; and Anne Frankle [@cmi_ceo], CEO of Chartered Institute of Management.  

I was not sure what to expect given the topic has been talked to death.  A quick search of ‘future of work’ on Google returned 307 million hits, from full sized reports to short opinion pieces, covering the full spectrum of views ranging from the apocalyptically pessimistic to the extremely optimistic, and every shades of colour in between. 

Both Tom and Chris held moderately optimistic, sensible and fairly balanced views, which many of us share.  Both of them were sharp, experienced, and eloquent, illustrated their views with examples and metaphors.  However, when asked about how AI (Artificial Intelligence) would affect the future of work, Tom used the metaphor of like ‘electricity’; and Chris believed that AI would ‘make us more productive’ (or Evernote would make us more productive by using AI).  Both of them seemed to be concerned about the growing dominance of AI by the big five (Google, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft and IBM), although Chris believed that interoperability would alleviate most potential problems.  Unfortunately, after only a few short questions and comments, it was time to finish our coffee and head back to our day jobs. 

For such a group of talented people with strong opinions, everyone behaved remarkably well.  In fact, my MBA classes tended to have more heated debates and discussions.  Surprisingly, at least two thirds of the participants turned down the opportunities for a glass of wine over the three course lunch, and opted for water instead!  Perhaps time – and work - has indeed changed. 

Do I believe that AI would be like electricity?  Probably not.  There is General AI – or Artificial General Intelligence, which could become like electricity in the future; but there is also more special purpose AI aimed at specific applications or tasks – or Applied AI as it is known sometimes.  This is where creativities will flourish.  While the general AI may become an infrastructure, the genuinely creative AI may not. 

Am I concerned about the big five dominating AI in the future?  Not really - no more worrying than Google dominating Search; or Microsoft dominating PC operating systems.  Even though some of the big five might dominate general AI, applied AI will require specialist domain expertise far beyond even the talent pools of the big fives.  The dominance of some big tech firms would provide the foundation – or the fertile soil - for a million flowers of applied AI to bloom.  In fact, I do not even believe the big five would dominate the general AI.  Many of the big firms of the future may have not yet been created and I won’t be surprised if some of the big five are left behind in the next wave of technological revolution, or even go out of business. 

AI is developing rapidly and it has huge potential to make us all more productive, as Chris O’Neil argued.  However, most people talked about AI as a black box.  Once getting inside the black box, we will soon realise that most artificial intelligence is not very intelligent, not yet anyway.  They are particularly good at certain types of tasks, just like computers are much better than humans at large scale calculations.  However, AI - and robots -  are terrible at many types of tasks we humans found incredibly easy to do or particularly good at.  AI will help us do our jobs and live our lives better.  They are not going to replace or dominate us, not yet anyway. 

-------- *----------*--------

In terms of Technology and the Future of Work, a plethora of new technological development, combined with social, political and economic changes, are leading to significant changes in the future of work. Some of these changes will happen in the next 5-10 years, but many will take significantly longer, perhaps decades longer.

Key technologies include AI, particularly based on big data and machine learning; automation and robotics; autonomous vehicles, connected homes, smart cities, wearable technologies, IoTs, mobile communications and the cloud, are singly and collectively enabling new ways of working and living.  Other significant developments include the sharing economy, new business models, VR and AR, and 3D printing.  The list can go on. 

However, the future is highly uncertain.  Some developments are predictable but many are not.  Just because something is technologically feasible does not mean it will be widely taken up, or taken up in ways projected today.  For every successful technological innovation (such as the iPhone), there are plenty more tech flops - just look at Google Glasses; Apple Watch; and 3D TV.  The same could even happen to AR and VR, although many big tech firms are currently betting on them.  I would like to believe their imminent taking off in the next couple of years (even wrote a report on it - The Future of Video). 

Back in the 70s during the first oil crisis, combined with the advent of the information economy where most work had become more information intensive and over half of the workforce in developed countries were information workers.  So instead of commuting to work in city centre in person, we could electronically take work to where people were by telecommunications and computing – the so-called Telecommuting or Teleworking.  This has never really taken off as projected.  Even after 50 years, many of us are working more flexibly and can do many tasks effectively from home or anywhere we want, but we still come to the office and get together with colleagues regularly.  Some of our fundamental assumptions about work were wrong.  Work is not just what we do, but also where we go and who we go with.  We should be cautious when predicting the future of work with AI and other new technologies, which may take much longer to materalise, and may eventually happen in very different ways from how we imagined today. 

The day before the Roundtable, some London underground drivers were on strike again, causing chaos and misery for millions of commuters, not to mention the huge economic and other damages to businesses and individuals.  It turned out that the reason for the strike was that eight train drivers (yes, 8) were unhappy about being moved from one depot to another.  How could a handful of train drivers hold a whole city to ransom when technologically we don’t really even need train drivers at all?  Anyone who has been to Singapore will know that the technologies have been available for decades for driverless trains, which could serve London far better than using human drivers, at huge savings to millions of people, but we are all repeatedly held to ransom by the powerful trade unions, stopping efforts to modernise the London underground system, at high costs for commuters and for the economy.  It remains to be seen how driverless cars will proliferate.  Today, people are still drive cars with manual gearboxes, so it will be a far bigger leap for driverless cars to be widely taken up.  Would airline pilots, train, bus, lorry, taxi drivers still be around in 10 years time?  I suspect they will be.

Another issue about the future of work is related to low skilled work and social mobility.  As technologies develop and the talent and capital classes capture a disproportionate share of wealth, people at the bottom of society are increasingly accumulating around the minimum wage.  Just visit any department stores or shops, you will see armies of low paid shop assistants.  The ageing society will require a lot of care assistants and domestic helpers.  Would robots replace those people?  Probably not – just as ATM did not replay bank tellers.  In fact, demand might grow for low skilled workers.  Political, economic and social forces will slow down or prevent the onslaught of robotics and automation.  Taxing robots, recently suggested by Bill Gate, is just silly and unpractical, and it is wrong in so many levels.  It is a tax on capital investment.   

Robots and AI and other technologies are very good at certain tasks but it does not mean they can replace humans.  My guess is, some jobs will be replaced, but for many others, AI and robots etc will help humans do their jobs better – and live our lives more comfortably.  We do what humans do best and robots help us with a growing range of tasks.  In the meantime, lots of new jobs will be created too.  We will not all be lazing about all day long with robots doing everything for us.  If anything, we might get even busier. 

When making projections about the future of work, we should remember that the world is not standing still.  What were the predictions when Photocopiers and IBM computers first came out?  The chances are, job increases will outstrip supply. 

The biggest problem with debates about technology and future of work is that people often mix up different perspectives, issues at different levels; and the phenomenon, their consequences, and the business and policy measures to address them.  The future of work will change, by and large for the better, for the majority of people.  Nevertheless, there will be painful transitions for many people, which call for interventions at the policy, business and individual levels.  The future is bright, but some of us might have to experience some pains to get there.