I have commented on political, cultural, and spiritual issues for fifteen years, from local papers to national news stations. For the first time, I received a call from a reader — let’s call him Robert — who lives in Florida. I was pleased, impressed, and intrigued by his rebuttals.
Robert had some comments about a recent article I wrote on A.I. He argued that customer service–based entry-level employment will disappear. For example, we contact insurance companies to set up a policy or seek help from customer service. In five years, he said, A.I. will be able to craft “employees” who can respond to all of our questions.
Robert then informed me that A.I. will soon integrate and synthesize expansive library-sized amounts of information in the fields of law and medicine, rendering professionals in those fields redundant.
Last of all, Robert described an A.I. program that scanned the works of a famous author, then received a couple of prompts outlining a certain plot and specific characters. With all of that input, the program churned out a short story in the same style and substance as the author. The writer whom the A.I. program imitated confirmed the accuracy of the content.
Robert brought up some excellent points. Had I explored the long-term strains that would develop with the rise of A.I. in the workforce and the artist’s studio?
I even came across a recent CNBC article that seems to confirm Robert’s A.I. gloom:
There is growing evidence that the widespread adoption of generative A.I. is impacting the job prospects of America’s workers, according to a paper released on Tuesday by three Stanford University researchers.
The study analyzed payroll records from millions of American workers, generated by ADP, the largest payroll software firm in the U.S.
The report found “early, large-scale evidence consistent with the hypothesis that the A.I. revolution is beginning to have a significant and disproportionate impact on entry-level workers in the American labor market.”
Most notably, the findings revealed that workers between the ages of 22 and 25 in jobs most exposed to A.I. — such as customer service, accounting and software development — have seen a 13% decline in employment since 2022.
Perhaps my assessment of A.I.’s impact was too optimistic. A 13% decline is not something to sniff at.
Then I read the next paragraph:
By contrast, employment for more experienced workers in the same fields, and for workers of all ages in less-exposed occupations such as nursing aides, has stayed steady or grown. Jobs for young health aides, for example, rose faster than their older counterparts.
The leveling off of entry-level jobs is inevitable with innovation. The millions of workers associated with horse feeds and horse care are gone now that we rely on gas-powered combustion vehicles to travel from point A to point B. Where all the horse-related professions disappeared, in their place emerged all sorts of mechanics and other car-related employment needs.
I reflected on other technological innovations in the last century, which further confirm that new inventions won’t hinder economic growth or business opportunities.
Typewriters required specific types of repair, along with ink, new keys, and replacement ribbons. Then came computers. They also required ink, but for more complex types of printers. Mechanics who repaired typewriters, keyboards, etc., shifted to computers. More people today own laptop computers than they owned typewriters in the past. Innovation lowers costs and increases wealth, allowing individuals to purchase goods that were once luxuries. With widespread ownership of new gadgets comes the need for more maintenance and improvement. All of this expansion creates more jobs and employs more workers! Creative invention leads to creative destruction, which inevitably creates more employment opportunities, just in different fields.
A.I. can direct robots that lay bricks or build buildings. But a human being will still have to design the ideal structures for a community. The robot can lay the groundwork, but someone will have to ensure that the robot finishes the job properly. Judgment on value, quality, mission, and vision still lies with human beings. A.I. cannot replace that.
A.I. may replace the scut and grunt work of paralegals, but the creativity, intuition, and ingenuity of a lawyer to spot the necessary argument or determine the proper legal course of action during a trial, without clear information manifested in writing, will still require a keen and aware human mind. Also, do we really want cold, heartless robots to serve as judges? Discretion, interpretation, and mercy are essential to a well-functioning criminal justice system.
These factors also impact the medical and counseling professions. A.I. can analyze data more quickly and engage in more penetrating analysis to diagnose patients. Robots may develop the skills to complete complex surgeries on patients. But A.I. can never replace the heart and soul of a human being, which is required for care and long-term healing. A.I. is not going to harm the workforce, but open up new demands, which human beings will have to supply.
But what about the arts? Should we acquiesce to robots writing our stories and just sit back and enjoy our forced indolence?
Theater owners feared for their livelihoods with the advent of television. However, the movie industry didn’t take a dive, but survived and even thrived. Why? Because the quality of movie production improved due to competition, and the refined art and technical skill rendered in movie theaters exceeded those of the TV studios. Different means and different uses of media shifted taste and increased interest, thus generating different wants and needs.
Critics like Robert might counter that the movie industry is still in decline, all because of social media, especially YouTube and Rumble. Could A.I., coupled with social media, put actors, directors, and producers out of work?
First of all, people are still going to movies. Individual content creators can produce entire movies or video segments with fewer staff and gain immense wealth, too. More creators releasing all sorts of content has generated more demand (however specialized), and more workers are needed in differing tech fields to meet these new demands. A.I. can assist with the production, but the direction and motivation remain with the creator.
A.I. can churn out poems, stories, and novels. A.I. cannot snuff out the creativity, spiritual guidance, or inspiration of the human soul.
Consider the immense genius of Sir Isaac Newton. Newton imagined problems and answered questions beyond the scope of any human being — not just in his time, but today! Newton asked questions that his colleagues, and even A.I. today, have not answered. More importantly, Newton asked questions that A.I. could never think of. Newton’s broad, probing questions (just in the field of optics!) still drive scientific inquiry. In stark contrast, A.I. and robots cannot be curious, even if human beings forge self-conscious androids. They will search for something only if directed or prompted by their creators.
No matter how sophisticated A.I. becomes in terms of computation or generativity, it cannot replicate, let alone exceed, human creativity or curiosity.
Consider the fantastical inventions and operations in Star Trek and Star Wars. The capacity to research, develop, and test means for traveling to Mars or other far-off places will be much closer to reality because we have the technology to accomplish unforeseen, unprecedentedly important tasks in a timely fashion. They could finally manifest — by humans, with the help of A.I.
A.I. will liberate human ingenuity from mundane tasks. But the human element will not disappear. The wants and needs, and the resources needed to meet them, cannot be predicted by man, and therefore cannot be replaced by A.I.
A.I. can compute faster and reason more efficiently, but the availability and expanse of knowledge itself is so great — a problem that will remain unsolvable. Isaac Newton, for all his scientific genius and prowess, recognized this inevitable limitation:
I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.
A.I. can do but cannot dream.
A.I. can think, but it cannot envision.
A.I. can work, but it cannot inspire.
A.I. can make our lunch, but it will not eat our lunch.
The Roberts of the world should rest easy.
Image via Pexels.