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

Beyond Belief - Helen Pearson *****

Apparently it comes as a surprise to many that medicine was not particularly scientific until the end of the twentieth century (to be honest, it's no surprise to me - we had a GP who used homeopathy in the 90s). Instead it was based on anecdotal guidance - the kind of thing that appeared to work. Evidence-based medicine has since improved the field, trying where possible to base decisions on evidence, ideally based on randomised controlled trials. The first part of Helen Pearson's book covers this well - though I think it's by far the least interesting part of what we discover. Instead what's truly fascinating is the rest of it, looking at a wide range of other fields where evidence was rarely properly used and that are only now starting to dip a toe in the water. These include social policy, policing, conservation, business and education. The main part of the book gives us examples of how bad these areas have been in terms of basing decisions on what's always been ...

The Random Universe - Andrew Jaffe *****

This is an absolutely fascinating book for anyone interested in the way that science really works, bearing in mind the difficulties of having to base our models and theories on induction. Andrew Jaffe introduces the difficulties we face when trying to take a scientific view because largely we are dependent on induction: predicting the future from what has previously been observed. He explores what probability is, the two key ways of looking at it (frequentist and Bayesian) and how scientists use (or misuse it) to work out the implications of their experiments for hypotheses. This is then expanded into looking at the nature of scientific models and the philosophy of science before heading out to entropy, quantum randomness and attempting to achieve meaningful cosmology with its potential dearth of evidence.  The topic might sound a little dry, but in fact Jaffe does it with good humour and a very readable style. For example, he uses measuring his daughter's height by making marks on...

God: the Science, the Evidence - Michel-Yves Bolloré and Olivier Bonnassies ***

This is, to say the least, an oddity, but a fascinating one. A translation of a French bestseller, it aims to put forward an examination of the scientific evidence for the existence of a deity… and various other things, as this is a very oddly structured book (more on that in a moment). In The God Delusion , Richard Dawkins suggested that we should treat the existence of God as a scientific claim, which is exactly what the authors do reasonably well in the main part of the book. They argue that three pieces of scientific evidence in particular are supportive of the existence of a (generic) creator of the universe. These are that the universe had a beginning, the fine tuning of natural constants and the unlikeliness of life.  To support their evidence, Bolloré and Bonnassies give a reasonable introduction to thermodynamics and cosmology. They suggest that the expected heat death of the universe implies a beginning (for good thermodynamic reasons), and rightly give the impression tha...