The Reader: AI is not the only factor that will affect our working lives

ARTIFICIAL intelligence does not dictate one singular “future of work”, but rather enables multiple possible “futures of work” depending on context, choices, and our adaptability to new circumstances [“BoE: Robots set to kill off more jobs than ever”, August 20]. The Bank of England’s chief economist, Andy Haldane, raises an important issue when he cautions that AI could create seismic shifts including large scale “technological unemployment”.

The disparate impacts of AI on different jobs and tasks must be considered alongside the changing nature and organisation of work. Technological change is just one of the transforming drivers. While job losses are an important consideration, these changes have wider social implications relating to fractionalisation and deformalisation of employment relationships, rising inequality between and within countries, and hardships faced by younger generations and the disenfranchised in particular.

We’re working on analysing the jobs of the future and how this will impact well-being and policy decisions. These emerging challenges may also give rise to new opportunities: governance and regulation models can be devised to address the changing nature of work. AI may support rapidly developing technology-driven industries, better tech in workplaces and adoption in more traditional industries, as well as widening market access.
Sanna Ojanperä
The Alan Turing Institute

Dear Sanna,

IT’S good to hear that the new Alan Turing Institute is looking at the social implications of the great technological advances that are under way. I am a big optimist about these changes. Artificial intelligence, augmented reality and robots are going to improve dramatically human healthcare, reduce the need for people to undertake boring tasks, and make services widely available that were the preserve of the rich.

Andy Haldane is right to say it will lead to changes in the job market; but I would enter this note of caution to predictions of mass unemployment. We are always better at predicting the jobs that will be lost through technology but find it almost impossible to forecast the jobs that will be created.

None of the employment forecasts I saw in government eight years ago anticipated that ride-sharing and food delivery apps would create tens of thousands of flexible jobs. Changes like AI are not being imposed by some external force; they are the product of brilliant human ingenuity. By all means, let’s write the rules around their use. But we should embrace them.

George Osborne, Editor

I strongly support Nimco Ali’s proposal [“A register can help protect our daughters against FGM” August 21]. But it might be helpful to offer accompanying education programmes.

Many women affected who I talked to did not know why they had been cut but thought it was the right thing to do to their own daughters. My daughter’s nanny offered to have her cut as a favour to me. Having herself been cut, she understood it was required for all girls.

In some of the African countries where I worked I asked people why they thought FGM was necessary. Many said that a woman who was not cut would be infertile, would not get a husband, or her children would die of dreadful diseases. Most commonly, I found FGM imposed on unsuspecting young girls by women relatives. Some men said they were against cutting, but the women ignored them. With education programmes, women could explain to others why this dangerous practice needs to stop.
Lois Carter