Skip to main content

Robot-Proof - Vivienne Ming ****

As Vivienne Ming makes apparent, there seem largely to be two views of AI's pros and cons, both of which are almost certainly wrong. It's either doom-saying 'It'll destroy life as we know it' or Pollyanna-ish 'It'll do all the boring work and we can all be wonderfully creative and live lives of leisure.'

Instead, Ming gives us a clear analysis of the likely trajectory for the workplace, particularly for the IT industry. She describes three 'equally flawed, intellectually lazy strategies' to deal with the impact of AI. The first is substitution and deprofessionalisation, using AI to allow cheaper 'AI-augmented technicians' to replace more expensive professionals, producing more low wage jobs and fewer mid-range. This does save money but leaves a company at risk of being easily outcompeted.

The second is what Ming describes as the '"A-Player" Hunger Games', the approach favoured by Silicon Valley. This sees the growing rift between routine and creative work and always searches for the 'supposed "10x" creative geniuses', outsourcing the grunt work. The idea is that you find the absolute best creative programmers and such, who have inherent talent and who will continue to thrive when basic coding is in the hands of AI.

Finally there is what she describes as 'the AI Bait-and-Switch'. This is where AI does all the everyday boring repetitive work so all staff are supposedly freed up to do the fun creative stuff. Ming's modelling suggest that in reality what happens is that 'When AI is deployed merely to make routine work more efficient, it doesn't create more creative time; it creates more routine work.'

This analysis is hugely important, because there is so much misunderstanding of AI's benefits (and flaws). Ming argues that we can indeed provide more opportunities to be creative with the help of AI, but that it's not about automating routine work - it's more about using the AI to enhance the creative process, recognising that we can develop creativity, it isn't a purely inherent ability. She describes how we can potentially build more innovation and creativity into people (with the help of properly used AI), particularly when looking at children. I was, though, slightly unsure about at least one suggested approach she suggests that has raised some academic concerns.

My only other uncertainty regarding Ming's solution is that the book is littered with examples where she has provided tools, for instance, to enable teachers to become more creative and effective which don't get used. I honestly can't see many big businesses actually doing anything with this approach. It's certainly effective for someone like me: as a freelance I find AI can really help in the way she describes. But sadly I think most organisations will go down one of her three doomed routes. (I do slightly differ on the 'A-player' side in that when I ran a team of programmers, there really were some who were a lot more productive than others in a way that could not be retro-fitted. Talent is a real thing.) 

This is, then, an important book. I didn't honestly enjoy Ming's writing style, where she tries too hard to be funny and seems to be somewhat overenthusiastic in sharing stories of how everyone thinks she's wonderful and want to recruit her to senior positions, while effectively noting that a lot of people she meets are stupid. (Shouldn't she be improving their creative viewpoints?) 

Will Robot-Proof change the world? No, because just as Ming has found in real life, most often organisations won't take her advice. But without doubt it's a powerful analysis of how AI could change the workplace for good or evil.

Hardback:   
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee or taking out a membership:
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that ‘Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...

How to Keep a Plane in the Sky - Alex Davies ****

If there's one big gap in the science writing sphere, it's popular engineering (you can quibble over whether engineering is science, but where else would you put popular engineering?). Alex Davies does the field a real service with this insightful introduction to the world of test engineering. The concept is simple. If we build something and sell it, we need to test it to make sure that it won't fail in a way that's dangerous to the consumer. The most obvious example is airliners, which feature at some length, but this applies to everything from cuddly toys to hair straighteners: someone needs to predict what could go wrong and to put the product through its paces to see if it will survive under any reasonable circumstances. When Davies is telling a story of test engineering in action, the book is a delight. He opens with the way that real bears are used to test if bears can get into coolers and trash cans - and the impressive ways these animals can  circumvent human in...

On the Equality of All Things - Carlo Rovelli ****

There is a wide gulf between the worldviews of physicists and philosophers. Many physicists present a rather sweetly naive, child-like view of the world, where philosophers bring a distinctly more adult, cynical tone. This being the case, it can be a little worrying when a physicist dips a toe into the philosophical mire. Infamously, in The Grand Design , Stephen Hawking and co-author Leonard Mlodinow told us that philosophy was now dead because science could deal with anything it had previously been needed for. Thankfully, Carlo Rovelli is not trying to do away with philosophy, though it has to be said that when he veers into the topic that physicist's naivety can make it feel like the philosophising of an earnest eighteen-year-old. Take the opening paragraph, which tells us 'electrons and minds, stones and laws, judgements and galaxies do not essentially differ in nature from one another. They are notions that illuminate each other'. I almost expected a Pink Floyd soundtr...