Future of work much like past – robots no threat
Warnings that jobs are changing rapidly and at risk from automation are missing the mark, according to a Productivity Commission draft report on the future of work.
It has become a cliche that the rate of adoption of new technologies is accelerating, and that ‘‘new’’ innovations such as artificial intelligence mean that by the time young people are middleaged they will have had dozens of careers. But the draft report questions whether work is really at such an inflection point.
Instead, ‘‘there is little, if anything’’ in the available data to suggest imminent disruption to work, the commission found.
‘‘In an environment of rapid technological change and diffusion, one would expect to see high rates of firm start-ups, high productivity growth and high levels of job churn. Yet across the developed world, the data indicates the opposite,’’ it said.
‘‘Several commentators have argued that technological change in general is accelerating. Some of these observations are based primarily on developments in artificial intelligence, while others cite the adoption of other technologies,’’ the report notes.
‘‘Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand and the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research pointed to apparent increases in the speed of technology uptake in the United States.’’
But the commission said a report by the Mckinsey Global Institute on ‘‘workforce transitions’’ found that while technology adoption rates were probably faster than was the case 100 years ago, ‘‘there was no evidence of acceleration over the last six decades’’.
Instead, Mckinsey’s report concluded that even with fast rates of AI adoption ‘‘future rates of labour displacement from automation within specific sectors are not unprecedented’’ and ‘‘little is new about the breadth of impact of automation technologies’’.
The assessment appears broadly in keeping with the conclusions of New Zealand’s AI Forum last year, when its executive director, Ben Reid, argued that technologies such as artificial intelligence needed to be put in perspective.
After reviewing more than 50 international papers on the potential impacts of AI, the forum concluded Ai-driven job displacement, at least, would have only a ‘‘relatively modest influence overall’’.
‘‘We should not expect AI to be different to any other technologydriven change in recent times,’’ Reid argued then.
In the ‘‘worst case scenario’’, the forum estimated advances in the technology would only add 10 per cent to normal job churn over the next 40 years and ‘‘there is no obvious reason why existing labour market support policies would not be able to cope’’.
However, the AI Forum this month published fresh research that warned the country might be missing opportunities to use AI to help achieve ‘‘wellbeing, sustainability and economic goals’’ in areas such as health, transport, business and the environment.
Broad applications of the technology include being able to predict when assets and machines will need maintenance, computer-assisted diagnoses in medicine, and self-driving cars.
New Zealand had been ‘‘slow to act with urgency to seize the opportunities’’ when relatively modest joint public-private investments in flagship AI projects could deliver results in fields such as health, road safety and conservation, the AI Forum said.
The commission agreed in its draft report that ‘‘the problem is not that there is too much technological change and adoption; there is too little’’.
New Zealand had historically done ‘‘a poor job of adopting new technologies’’ and needed to embrace technology, not treat it as a threat, it said.
‘‘While poor adoption may mean less disruption to work, it also results in lower productivity growth, lower income growth and fewer resources to pay for the things New Zealanders value.’’
The commission aims to finalise its report by the end of March.