As AI begins to take our jobs, there is much we can do to deal with the challenge

There are ethical questions to be debated and discussed, such as 'what limits should there be on AI?' AFP

Over the next few months, we will feel the impact of the technology behind Generative AI across a wide range of sectors such as pharmaceutical research and development, transport, energy, waste reduction and cancer treatment. The outcomes and accomplishments will change the way we live and work.

Its promise is that we will live longer, and our well-being and quality of life will dramatically improve. But how likely is this to play out for working professionals? One theory is that it will result in mass unemployment. Could that be our reality along with the social, political and economic turmoil that would surely follow in its wake?

Let’s look back at the first two years of a world with Generative AI. Many of us are more frequently turning to applications such as ChatGPT or Gemini or Midjourney or Runway to help produce stronger writing, research, designs and images more quickly.

Since the advent of this technology, there has been a gradual increase in job cuts, especially by the largest tech companies but not confined to that sector. In the US and Europe, the biggest companies such as Meta, Microsoft, Google, Apple and IBM have shed staff.

This has largely affected office jobs. But beyond IT companies, head counts have been reduced by corporations in a broad range of sectors including finance, automobiles and heavy industry.

There are ethical questions to be debated and discussed. What limits should there be on AI? And who should be setting the guardrails

Some of this is related to the Covid-19 pandemic and over-hiring once the economic crisis subsided. But now, as we approach a new year, months of higher inflation are beginning to bite and profit margins are being protected.

The data points related to overall proportion of jobs being lost because of AI are only in the low double-digits. This rate will rise, as will the number of never-seen-before roles that AI brings to the market. New jobs have been limited to, for example, prompt engineers.

So far, the conclusion must be that the promise of Generative AI has been low key – as have the consequences. But when the impact accelerates, we have to assume that the fallout will be bigger.

Up to now, the most common responses to this new era have been to choose a belief or ignore it. We have the optimists who focus on the enhancement we will gain, and there are the pessimists who worry not only about livelihoods but where this power will take us.

There are ethical questions to be debated and discussed. What limits should there be on AI? And who should be setting the guardrails: governments, companies, consumers, or all of the above?

The next two years will probably be extremely volatile, with greater uncertainty and a faster pace of progress. We often look to the bigger picture for how we should confront such times. We also take our cues from experts and leaders. However, we might be better off in the long run by focusing on the personal.

We all have our moral judgment, which we rely on daily for decision-making. We should apply it to AI.

For example, when you receive an email written with the help of Generative AI, are you OK with that? Does it show you how technology can enhance our communication, make us all better, more efficient and stronger? Or do you regard it as cheating, allowing someone who doesn’t have a skill to fake it? There is no one answer.

There is a perpetual fear of killer robots, such as this one from Terminator Genisys, even though we haven’t actually seen evidence of them ourselves. Paramount Pictures

Just like technology, our morality evolves as we discover new things.

Unlike weighing the pros and cons of using AI for our writing, it is quite hard to make a case against using AI to help cure cancer or use robotics to perform complex operations with a higher chance of success. This is especially if it might mean saving a loved one.

Ultimately, that is what our world is. It is a product of how we interact with the people around us. We want those we care about to live better lives. We want it for ourselves.

Should we want it for those we don’t know? We say we do, but it is difficult to put that intent into practice on a global level as individuals. How do we feel about a stranger losing their job to a machine? Is that a world we are OK with? What conditions would we need for that to be acceptable to you?

Do we know someone who has actually lost their job because of the advent of Generative AI? If we do, that might frame your thinking about the technology, and we may want to exact a much more stringent framework for its use. But if we don’t, then any anxiety about it might be centred on the risk of the same thing happening to us.

Is this not as abstract a fear as the thought of killer robots running amok? Sure, we have been told that it could happen, but we haven’t actually seen evidence of it ourselves. If we aren’t worried about losing our job, then why is that? Should it be down to denial, then the time has come to break out of it.

We should think about the potential costs and benefits of AI becoming ubiquitous. How might that remake our lives? It is useful to remember the lesson of smartphones here. In that context, we cannot deny that there should have been guardrails in place early.

We should not make that same mistake again. In other words, we shouldn’t make the mistake of thinking that we shouldn’t be helping to decide in what direction the new technologies should go.