A report by Rana Foroohar for the Financial Times states that it depends on the chronogram and the socioeconomic context.  As IA is developed in every industry, it will benefit those who can make the most of its advantages.

Large technology companies have intensified a campaign focused on convincing people that robots will not replace them at work.

Executives from Intel and Tesla gave their testimony during a meeting of the committee of the Chamber of Representatives on the challenges that Artificial Intelligence (AI) faces, putting the concerns of people aside. The Head Economist of Google, Hal Varian, said that AI is the labour solution to solve the decreasing birth rates in wealthy countries.

This pro-technology offensive coincided with a series of events that provided a different perspective on the technology industry. The most remarkable include the revelations of the way in which Facebook and other technological platforms were used to undermine the American presidential elections in 2016. This happened after a 60 years old taxi driver shot himself at the gate of the New York city hall, desperate for the structural changes that are going on in his sector. This led the major of New York, Bill de Blasio, to make another failed attempt to regulate Uber.

Bill Gates, technology expert derived in a philanthropist, warned us that “Big Tech” is resisting the government’s control attempts. Unilever threatened to withdraw its advertisement from companies such as Google and Facebook, which “divide society”. And Andrew Yang, founder of a non-profit organization that matches university graduates with jobs in start-up companies, nominated himself for the 2020 presidential elections with an anti-IA platform. He will not succeed, but the issue –the human cost of artificial intelligence, big data, and automation-, will be a key factor in the American elections of 2018 and 2020.

The answer to the question whether AI will help or damage workers depends on their chronogram and their socioeconomic class. On the long term, technology is always a net employment creator, but, as Keynes stated, in the long term we are all dead.

In the next five years, as technologies advances in every industry, they will benefit those who are on the top in terms of skills and education to make the most of the productivity advantages that AI provides. But, those workers that perform highly repetitive tasks, which machines can easily develop, will not do so well. It is quite likely that AI will deepen the trend of “the winner gets it all” in the global labour markets. This will have massive consequences. A report by the McKinsey Global Institute shows that, even though digitalization has the potential of enhancing productivity and growth, it can also suppress the demand if it reduces workers’ income and increases inequality. A previous survey by McKinsey, developed among global executives, showed that the majority believed they would need to re-train or replace over 25% of their workforce by 2023, in order to digitalize their business.

Foroohar suggests a radical solution. Not firing workers: “I am not asking American companies to keep their workers as an act of charity. I am suggesting the public and private sector to work together on what might be a New Digital Deal, such as the New Deal developed by president Franklin Roosevelt”.

For each of the many jobs that will be replaced by automation, there are other areas (customer service, data analysis, etc.) that desperately need talent. The companies that promise to keep their workers and train them for new jobs, must receive tax incentives for doing so.

“It could be called the 25% solution, acknowledging the number of workers who might lose their jobs. It would a way for companies for business and the government to transform a possible labour disaster into an opportunity, making the most of this disruption to train the 21^st century workforce, and build the public infrastructure to back it up. The alternatives – a slower growth and more polarized policies- are quite nasty”, she states.