AI threatens new workplace revolution
Governments must put in place policies, skills training and safety nets to cope, IMF chief says
If your job involves inputting reams of data for a company, you might want to think about retraining in a more specialised field. Or as a plumber.
After industrial robots and international trade put paid to many manufacturing jobs in the West, millions of white-collar workers could now be under threat from new technology such as artificial intelligence (AI).
The issue of how best to face up to this ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ has been exercising politicians and business leaders this week at the World Economic Forum in the Swiss Alpine town of Davos.
The progress of artificial intelligence has been “staggering” in recent years, said Vishal Sikka, CE of Indian IT giant Infosys. “But in many ways we are at the beginning of this evolution and we face the prospect of leaving a larger part of humanity behind than in any other [industrial] advance,” he warned.
Populist backlash
Public disquiet about technological change and globalisation has already sparked a populist backlash in Western countries, culminating in Donald Trump’s inauguration as US president today. But much more dislocation could yet be coming, and both the public and Western governments need to wake up to the challenge, observers say.
New technologies are “going to completely disrupt and change the working place for a long time”, and governments must put in place policies, skills training and safety nets to cope, International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde said.
For its part, global consultancy McKinsey said more than 60 per cent of jobs and 30 per cent of business activities could be automated today.
“Back office” labour in banking, insurance and other financial services, which involves clerical work such as data inputting, is seen as most at risk from IT automation.
But even professions like medicine and accountancy could face upheaval as AI evolves to evermore sophisticated heights.
A computer using machine intelligence is perfectly equipped to crunch through the available academic literature when analysing suspected cancer in a doctor’s patient.
But the doctor would still be needed ultimately to exercise his or her judgement over the best course of treatment, a pattern of adding specialist value that needs to be replicated in other professions if they want to stay relevant.