Julia Kirby had plenty of numbers on hand during her talk at the “Women Designing the Future Conference” on March 24, and at first glance, they weren’t too encouraging.
She referenced a recent Deloitte survey of millennials that included the impact of smart machines – more commonly referred to as robots. According to the survey, 40 percent of millennials saw the continuing trend of automation as a threat to their jobs, 44 percent believe there’s less of a demand for their skills, and 53 percent see the workplace as becoming more impersonal and less human.
The influential role of smart machines in the workforce is becoming more and more of a reality, and as cognitive machines become smarter, humans will have to redefine their workforce roles. The conference hosted by the Murray Center for Women in Technology at the New Jersey Institute of Technology was an exploration as to how to approach this uncertain future. The theme was “Thinking about Things that Think: Robots, Smart Devices, Pervasive Computing,” and it fit right in with guest speaker Kirby’s message.
As the co-author of “Only Humans Need Apply: Winners and Losers in the Age of Smart Machines,” Kirby’s spent a significant amount of time assessing the impact of cognitive machines and talking to those whose jobs are threatened by this changeover.
First, she noted that there’ve been three waves of automation in the workforce. The first took place in the early 1800s as part of the industrial revolution, when machines were invented to do the “dirty and dangerous” work. Advancements such as looms and spinning machines in the textile industry first provoked fear over the loss of jobs—even violence. In hindsight this wave of new innovation worked out and Kirby felt that it should provide some re-assurance about what is happening today. In the end innovation created more jobs and this advancement enabled humans to move onto better jobs.
The second wave took place more recently, in the age of information and communications technology, where computers took over the “dull” work such as typing or notarizing. Again, there was dis-location of workers, but in the end there was a move up to better jobs and work that was often mind-numbing was left behind.
Now, however, machine capabilities are moving into jobs that aren’t dirty, dangerous or dull. They’re taking jobs that are “purely human” that incorporate decision making, leaving many wondering what will be the next higher ground?
Kirby gave examples of careers where higher education was a requirement, but in the foreseeable future smart machines will be taking those positions. Air traffic controllers will be phased out; medical diagnostic work will be entrusted to computers instead of doctors; even sports writers will have machines breathing down their necks, since machines can now, given the data of a ballgame, write a life-like recap article.
“When will an AI machine win its first Pulitzer?” mused Kirby.
She recalled a venture capitalist in Silicon Valley who predicted that soon there will be hordes of citizens with zero economic value. Obviously this trend is one that needs to be addressed, but how? For starters, she says it has to start at the managerial level – employers need to view their mission as investing in humans rather than trying to deal with fewer of them. They need to focus on unleashing all of human potential.
“Management needs to agree that we still belong in the shop,” said Kirby. “It’s a mindset issue.”
Kirby says the key difference is applying machines to augment what people do instead of just automate. She notes that while that may seem like merely a rhetorical difference, there’s really a deep divide in the spirit of each of those two endeavors.
For humans to keep their jobs and remain as the largest contributors to the workforce, adaptability will be required, though it may make some uncomfortable.
She gave a real world example of a financial planner whose role used to be to meet with people and advise which stocks and bonds they should invest in. Now, however, machines can do those calculations and predictions in a nanosecond, which completely redefines his role with his company. He’s become more of a psychologist than a financial planner. By leveraging technology he spends time building relationships and helping people along in the process so they’re comfortable with the investments the computer is forecasting.
The financial planner’s company sees this role change as a good thing; they’re using machines to augment the work of humans and drawing on a new set of human strengths to make the investment process even more valuable for clients. However, the financial planner was required to adapt and learn skills other than those he gained in college.
Ultimately, Kirby sees the impact of cognitive machines as a net positive. Ironically, she foresees companies becoming more competitive for human talent and strengths— more so than ever before because as every company integrates the same technology, the critical competitive difference will be the human edge.
But much of this is in the hands of managers and developers who are designing the future.
Finally, she ended with some parting wisdom for the audience: “As you do your world-changing work, don’t ask ‘What’s the work machines can take away?’ Instead ask, ‘What’s the next work we can take on with smart machines leveraging us?’”
