Irving Wladawsky-Berger

AI: The Industrial Revolution of Knowledge Work

“AI is the Industrial Revolution of knowledge work, transforming how all workers can apply information, create content, and deliver results at speed and scale,” said the “2024 AI Jobs Barometer,” a report from the professional services firm PwC. With the AI Jobs Barometer, PwC set out to find empirical evidence of the impact of AI on jobs.

PwC analyzed over half a billion job ads from 15 advanced economies, including the US, Canada, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, and 10 Western Europe countries, as it looked for concrete evidence of AI’s impact on jobs, skills, wages, and productivity. It tracked the growth of jobs that demand specialist AI skills across countries and sectors to figure out the degree of AI penetration.

Overall, PwC found that AI penetration is accelerating and that workers with strong AI skills command significant wage premiums. Moreover, AI’s impact isn’t limited to only those workers who have specialist AI skills.

“Many, if not most, workers who use AI tools in their work do not have or need these specialist skills. For example, a limited number of workers with specialist AI skills may design an AI system or tool for a company that is then used by hundreds or thousands of the company’s customer service agents, analysts, or lawyers — none of whom have specialist AI skills.” In fact, one of the major features of generative AI applications is that they can typically be operated using simple everyday language with no technical skills required.

The Three Laws of Robotics

Earlier this year, MIT professor emeritus Rodney Brooks gave the closing keynote at the 2024 MIT Sloan CIO Symposium. Professor Brooks was director of the MIT AI Lab from 1997 to 2003, and was the founding director of MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) from 2003 until 2007. A robotics entrepreneur, he’s founded of a number of companies, including iRobot, Rethink Robotics, and Robust.AI.

Given that AI was the overall theme of this year’s MIT Symposium, Brooks focused his keynote on “What Works and Doesn't Work with AI.” He reminded the audience that “AI has been on the verge of changing everything” ever since the field was founded in the 1950s, and explained why so many AI predictions have turned out so wrong.

I wrote about his excellent presentation in “Artificial Intelligence: Realistic Expectations vs. Irrational Exuberance,” and concluded the blog with what Brooks called “My Three Laws of Artificial Intelligence”:

• When an AI system performs a task, human observers immediately estimate its general competence in areas that seem related. Usually that estimate is wildly overinflated.
• Most successful AI deployments have a human somewhere in the loop (perhaps the person they are helping) and their intelligence smooths the edges.
• Without carefully boxing in how an AI system is deployed there is always a long tail of special cases that take decades to discover and fix. Paradoxically all those fixes are AI-complete themselves.

At the end of July, Brooks posted two new essays in his website. One was “Rodney Brooks’ Three Laws of Artificial Intelligence,” where he elaborated on his Three Laws of AI. I’d like to now discuss his second essay, “Rodney Brooks’ Three Laws of Robotics.”

The Geek Way: A Better Way to Run a 21st Century Company

“Have you recently heard the CEO or other senior executive of a company say something like, we’re a technology company now?” asked Andrew McAfee ealier this year in his keynote at the 2024 MIT IDE Annual Conference. McAfee is a Principal Research Scientist at the MIT Sloan School of Management, and co-founder and co-director of MIT’s Initiative on the Digital Economy. “And in particular, when you heard that person say that, did you think to yourself that’s really not a technology company at all?”

He explained that what CEOs are trying to convey when they say that they run a technology company is that their company needs to be managed very differently now. The pressure to innovate, remain agile and execute at the very high level that technology companies have felt for the past two decades has actually been getting more intense and now applies to their own companies, regardless of the industry they are in.

McAfee’s keynote is based on his November, 2023 best seller The Geek Way: The Radical Mindset That Drives Extraordinary Results. The book’s thesis is succinctly articulated in its introduction: “A bunch of geeks have figured out a better way to run a company. As a result, they’re taking over the economy. And they’re just getting started.”

The 2024 State of Talent in the IT Sector

A few months ago the Linux Foundation (LF) published the “2024 State of Tech Talent Report,” a comprehensive analysis of talent management practices in the IT sector. The study is based on a web survey conducted by the LF and its partners earlier this year. The survey reached out to individuals responsible for hiring and training IT professionals around the world to better understand the current state of talent acquisition, retention, and management.

The survey analyzed data from 418 respondents carefully chosen to eliminates sample bias and ensure high data quality. Respondents came from companies of different sizes across a variety of vertical industries: 17% worked in organizations with less that 250 employees, 57% worked in organizations from 250 to 4,999 employees, and 26% in organizations with more than 5,000 employees.

 Respondents included IT vendors, service provides, nonprofits, academic institutions, and government organizations from around the world: 30% came from organizations headquartered in the US and Canada, 19% from Japan, 18% from Western Europe, 8% from India, 8% from other Asian countries, 4% from Eastern Europe, and 4% from Latin America.

The 2024 AI Index Report: AI’s Influence on Society Has Never Been More Pronounced

Earlier this year, the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence released the 2024 AI Index Report, its seventh annual edition of the impact, progress, and trends in AI. At over 500 pages and 9 chapters, the report aims to be the world’s most authoritative source for data and insights about AI in order to help develop a more thorough understanding of the rapidly advancing field of AI.

Last year’s report concluded that AI had now moved into its era of deployment, with new large-scale models being released every month. While these systems demonstrated capabilities unimagined a decade ago, they were prone to so called hallucinations, that is, they sometimes generate responses which contain false or misleading information presented as facts, as well as being prone to bias and to their use for negative purposes.

“The 2024 Index is our most comprehensive to date and arrives at an important moment when AI’s influence on society has never been more pronounced,” said this year’s report. “As AI has improved, it has increasingly forced its way into our lives. Companies are racing to build AI-based products, and AI is increasingly being used by the general public. But current AI technology still has significant problems. It cannot reliably deal with facts, perform complex reasoning, or explain its conclusions.”

How Does the Linux Foundation Work and What Does It Do?

I have long been involved with the Linux Foundation (LF). In 2000, a consortium of companies, including IBM, HP, and Intel, founded the Open Source Development Labs (OSDL), a non-profit organization to support the continued development of Linux and promote its use in enterprise computing. A few years later, in 2007, the OSDL merged with the Free Standards Group to become the Linux Foundation. At the time, I was leading the Linux initiative that IBM had launched in January of 2000 to embrace Linux across all the company’s products and services. In 2011, when the LF marked the 20th anniversary of Linux at its annual Linux conference, I had the privilege of giving a keynote presentation where I recounted my personal involvement with Linux and open source.

Over the past decade, the LF has undergone  a major expansion, as open source became widely accepted as a paradigm for innovation across a full suite of technologies, proving its utility beyond the collaborative development of the Linux operating system. Its impact has been felt across just about all industry sectors in our fast growing digital economy. Consequently, its annual conferences were rebranded Open Source Summits to be more representative of the LF’s expanded open source mission beyond Linux. In April of 2021, the LF announced the formation of Linux Foundation Research to broaden the understanding of open source projects and to explore new opportunities for open source initiatives. Later that year, Hilary Carter, LF’s then VP of Research, invited me to become a member of the LF Research Advisory Board.

I am truly impressed by the current scope of the Linux Foundation. The LF now includes over 1,400 company members, supports over 1000 open source projects in a variety of vertical and horizontal industry sectors, holds over 70 events around the world every year, and provides training and certification programs to equip developers with essential skills, not just for coding, but to support the management and best practices the projects themselves. The mission of the LF was quite easy to explain when it was mostly focused on Linux, but it’s quite a bit more complicated now.

LF’s Executive Director Jim Zemlin recently addressed the difficulty of explaining what the LF does and how it works in his June 13 weekly newsletter to the LF board and team members. Zemlin wrote that beyond the technical community, many don’t understand much about how the LF operates, such as the important role of the LF’s company members in sponsoring open source projects, and that generally, the key maintainers of LF’s largest projects are not volunteers but full-time employees of member companies.

Health and AI

The March 30, 2024 issue of The Economist includes a special  section on Health and AI, with six articles on the topic. “Artificial intelligence (AI) is generating excitement and hyperbole everywhere, but in the field of health care it has the potential to be transformational,” said the lead article, “The AI doctor will see you … eventually.” “In Europe analysts predict that deploying AI could save hundreds of thousands of lives each year; in America, they say, it could also save money, shaving $200bn-360bn from overall annual medical spending, now $4.5trn a year (or 17% of GDP).”

Healthcare is a system of coupled systems, encompassing medical and pharmaceutical research; the delivery of healthcare to patients by a variety of practitioners, including hospitals, physicians, nurses, and pharmacists; and the insurance companies and governments that pay for healthcare. It’s a highly regulated industry, which creates major barriers for the sort of innovative start-ups that have been the engine of transformation in other sectors. In advanced economies, a handful of companies, — e.g., Cerner, Epic, Athena, — support large healthcare providers with proprietary platforms that don’t interoperate with each other, making it difficult for smaller companies and startups to develop innovative AI tools and applications as has been the case in other industries.

There’s considerable hope that AI could help us better deal with the inherent complexity of the healthcare sector. “AI systems can enhance diagnostic accuracy and disease tracking, improve the prediction of patients’ outcomes and suggest better treatments,” notes The Economist. “It can also boost efficiency in hospitals and surgeries by taking on tasks such as medical transcription and monitoring patients, and by streamlining administration. It may already be speeding the time it takes for new drugs to reach clinical trials. New tools, including generative AI, could supercharge these abilities.”

However, “although AI has been used in health care for many years, integration has been slow and the results have often been mediocre.” Among the major reasons for the slow progress are the concerns about accuracy and trust necessary to protect patients’ safety. “Improving accuracy and reducing bias in AI tools requires them to be trained on large data sets that reflect patients’ full diversity.” But, while there’s lots of available health data, the data is highly fragmented making it difficult to use properly.

An Economic Framework for Understanding AI

“Artificial intelligence (AI) systems touch the lives of virtually every American,” said “An Economic Framework for Understanding Artificial Intelligence,” an overview of the economic potential of AI which was recently released by the White House Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) as part of their “2024 Economic Report of the President.” “In recent years, AI systems have advanced rapidly as recent developments in computing, data availability, and machine learning models have simultaneously come together to produce rapid improvements.”

“Still, much remains unknown,” the CEA added. “While AI’s capabilities will depend in part on the technology itself, its effects will be shaped by economic, regulatory, and social pressures. How society deploys this technology and what technology-specific guardrails are implemented will be critical factors in determining both the breadth and magnitude of its effects.”

“An economic framework, combined with a basic understanding of AI technology, allows us to make predictions about when, how, and why AI may be adopted. While such a framework can also tell us what broader effects AI adoption may have, applying economic insights to an evolving and proliferating technology like AI is especially challenging. However, it is also especially valuable, because decisions made at the onset of a new technology have a greater influence on its eventual impact.”

The AI Economic Framework is a rather long and comprehensive document. Let me briefly discuss a few of the its key points.

Who Still Works from Home?

Remote work, — aka work from home (WFH), — has been around for decades, but took off in the mid-late 1990s with the explosive growth of the internet. Some even predicted that the internet would lead to the decline of cities, because it would enable people to work, be in touch with friends and colleagues, and shop from home. Why would anyone choose to live in an expensive and crowded metropolitan area, when they could live in a more affordable, less stressful, potentially healthier location? Instead of declining, superstar cities continued to generate the greatest levels of innovation and good jobs, thus attracting a disproportionate share of the world’s talent.

But, everything changed when the COVID-19 pandemic spread worldwide in early 2020. “The coronavirus crisis is forcing white-collar America to reconsider nearly every aspect of office life,” wrote a June, 2020 NY Times Magazine article. “Some practices now seem to be wastes of time, happily discarded; others seem to be unexpectedly crucial, and impossible to replicate online. For workers wondering right now if they’re ever going back to the office, the most honest answer is that even if they do, the office might never be the same.”

The article cited the experience of Accenture, which at the time had around 500,000 employees in more than 200 cities in 120 countries. Before the pandemic, no more than 10% worked remotely on any given day. But, by the middle of March, nearly all were asked to work from home. Employees adapted quickly, said Accenture’s CTO. The volume of video calls went up by a factor of six while audio calls tripled. Despite having to switch from face-to-face to audio and video interactions, overall productivity actually went up as measured by several metrics.”

The Uncertain Impact of AI on Economies and Societies

“Artificial intelligence (AI) promises to boost productivity and growth, but its impact on economies and societies is uncertain, varying by job roles and sectors, with the potential to amplify disparities,” said “GenAI: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Work,” a recently published report by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). “As a positive productivity shock, AI will expand economies’ production frontiers and will lead to reallocations between labor and capital while triggering potentially profound changes in many jobs and sectors. AI offers unprecedented opportunities for solving complex problems and improving the accuracy of predictions, enhancing decision-making, boosting economic growth, and improving lives. However, precisely because of its vast and flexible applicability in numerous domains, the implications for economies and societies are uncertain.”

“The impact of AI is also likely to differ significantly across countries at different levels of development or with different economic structures,” adds the IMF report. “Advanced economies, with their mature industries and service-driven economies, typically have a higher concentration of jobs in sectors that require complex cognitive tasks. These economies are therefore both more susceptible to, yet better positioned to benefit from, AI innovations.”

“Conversely, emerging market and developing economies, often still reliant on manual labor and traditional industries, may initially face fewer AI-induced disruptions. However, these economies may also miss out on early AI-driven productivity gains, given their lack of infrastructure and a skilled workforce. Over time, the AI divide could exacerbate existing economic disparities, with advanced economies harnessing AI for competitive advantage while emerging market and developing economies grapple with integrating AI into their growth models.”

A Revolutionary Technology Is Not the Same As a Technological Revolution

“Artificial intelligence is almost certainly revolutionary in the sense that it will spawn new technology platforms, transform or eliminate many industries, and create new ones,” wrote British-Venezuelan economic historian Carlota Perez in a recent article, “What Is AI’s Place in History?” “But it must be understood as belonging to a larger, more mature technological revolution that began a half-century ago.”

 In her influential 2002 book, “Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital,” Perez wrote that technological revolutions have long been engines of growth, rejuvenating and transforming economies and societies. Since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, we’ve had a major technological revolution approximately every 60 years. First was the age of machines and factories starting in Britain in the 1770s. It was followed by the age of steam, coal and iron in the1830s; electricity, steel, and heavy engineering in the 1870s;  automobiles, oil and mass production in the 1900s; and the information and communications technology (ICT) and digital revolution in the 1970.

Technological revolutions encompass two different periods, each lasting 20 to 30 years. The installation period is the time of creative destruction, when novel exciting technologies emerge on the market, entrepreneurs launch many new startups based on these promising technologies, and venture capitalists encourage experimentation with new business models and money-making schemes. Inevitably, these speculative behaviors lead to a financial bubble, which eventually crashes and results in a period of economic stagnation.

After the crash, comes the deployment period, a time of institutional recomposition. The now well accepted technologies become the norm. Infrastructures and industries are better defined and more stable, and production capital drives long-term growth and expansion, spreading and multiplying the successful business models. New paradigms emerge for guiding innovation. Over time, these new paradigms transform the economy and everything around it, as well as re-shaping social behavior and the institutions of society.

What’s the State of Income Inequality Around the World?

Over the past few decades, technology advances like the smartphone and wireless internet have significantly improved the quality of life of billions around the world. The economic development brought about by globalization led to the Gintic decline of extreme poverty in China, East and South Asia, and Latin America. Globalization was supposed to boost prosperity, as nations were becoming more economically interdependent, but it’s also led to major dislocations in labor markets, benefiting workers in low-cost developing nations while severely impacting workers in the US and other advanced economies. The promise of technological progress and globalization as drivers of growth and prosperity has been a reality for many, but it’s also created winners and losers within nations, leading to rising economic inequality.

“Across the globe, but especially in the wealthy economies of the West, the gap between the rich and the rest has widened year after year and become a chasm, spreading anxiety, stoking resentment, and roiling politics,” wrote economist Branko Milanovic in “The Great Convergence: Global Equality and Its Discontents,” a recent article in Foreign Affairs. “Globalization, the argument goes, may have enriched certain elites, but it hurt many other people, ravaging one-time industrial heartlands and making people susceptible to populist politics.”

“There is much that is true about such narratives — if you look only at each country on its own,” added Milanovic. “Zoom out beyond the level of the nation-state to the entire globe, and the picture looks different. Global inequality refers to “the income disparity between all citizens of the world at a given time, adjusted for the differences in prices between countries. … At that scale, the story of inequality in the twenty-first century is the reverse: the world is growing more equal than it has been for over 100 years.”

Inequality is commonly measured by the Gini coefficient, a statistical measure of income or wealth inequality within a group, a nation, or the whole world that was first developed over 100 hundred years ago. A Gini score of 0 means perfect equality, where all income and wealth are the same for all members of the group, while a score of 100 means maximal inequality, where a single individual has all the income and all others have none.

Could AI Reshape the Value and Nature of Human Expertise?

“A recent Gallup poll found that 75% of U.S. adults believe AI will lead to fewer jobs,” wrote MIT economist David Autor in a recent article, “AI Could Actually Help Rebuild The Middle Class.” “But this fear is misplaced. The industrialized world is awash in jobs, and it’s going to stay that way. Four years after the Covid pandemic’s onset, the U.S. unemployment rate has fallen back to its pre-Covid nadir while total employment has risen to nearly three million above its pre-Covid peak.”

“Due to plummeting birth rates and a cratering labor force, a comparable labor shortage is unfolding across the industrialized world (including in China),” he added. “This is not a prediction, it’s a demographic fact. All the people who will turn 30 in the year 2053 have already been born and we cannot make more of them. Barring a massive change in immigration policy, the U.S. and other rich countries will run out of workers before we run out of jobs.”

In his article, Autor argues that AI has the potential to transform the labor market by reshaping the nature of human expertise. AI offers us the opportunity to extend the value of human expertise by enabling “a larger set of workers equipped with the necessary foundational training to perform higher-stakes decision-making tasks currently arrogated to elite experts, such as doctors, lawyers, software engineers and college professors.”

How to Diversify Admissions to Elite Private Colleges

“After the Covid pandemic made it difficult for high school students to take the SAT and ACT, dozens of selective colleges dropped their requirement that applicants do so,” wrote David Leonhardt in “The Misguided War on the SAT,” a recent NY Times article. “Colleges described the move as temporary, but nearly all have since stuck to a test-optional policy. It reflects a backlash against standardized tests that began long before the pandemic, and many people have hailed the change as a victory for equity in higher education.”

“Now, though, a growing number of experts and university administrators wonder whether the switch has been a mistake,” added Leonhardt. “Research has increasingly shown that standardized test scores contain real information, helping to predict college grades, chances of graduation and post-college success. Test scores are more reliable than high school grades, partly because of grade inflation in recent years.”

Leonhardt’s article is primarily based on two recent studies published by Opportunity Insights, a not-for-profit organization based at Harvard that conducts data-driven scientific research on how to improve upward mobility. Each of the studies analyzed the value of SAT and ACT standardized test scores in predicting academic success at the 12 so-called Ivy-Plus colleges, — the eight Ivy League colleges plus Chicago, Duke, MIT, and Stanford.

While using different data and analytical methodologies, the overall conclusion of each of these studies was similar: standardized SAT and ACT scores are highly predictive of academic success at the Ivy-Plus colleges regardless of the students’ socioeconomic backgrounds. In addition, the second study also found that standardized SAT and ACT scores are highly predictive of post-college career success, such as attendance at top graduate schools, high earnings, and employment at prestigious firms. Let me discuss each of these studies.

The Origins and Content of New Work

“Broadly speaking, many — perhaps most — workplace technologies are designed to save labor,” wrote MIT economist David Autor in his 2015 paper, “Why Are There Still So Many Jobs? The History and Future of Workplace Automation.” “Given that these technologies demonstrably succeed in their labor saving objective and, moreover, that we invent many more labor-saving technologies all the time, should we not be somewhat surprised that technological change hasn’t already wiped out employment for the vast majority of workers?, asked professor Autor.

The answer, he noted, underlines a fundamental economic reality that’s frequently overlooked: “tasks that cannot be substituted by automation are generally complemented by it.” Automation does indeed substitute for labor. However, automation also complements labor, raising economic outputs in ways that often lead to higher demand for workers. Articles often overstate the extent of machine substitution for human labor “and ignore the strong complementarities between automation and labor that increase productivity, raise earnings, and augment demand for labor.”

Most jobs involve a number of tasks or processes. Some of these tasks are more amenable to automation, while others require judgement, social skills and other human capabilities. But just because some of the tasks have been automated, does not imply that the whole job has disappeared. To the contrary, automating the more routine parts of a job will often increase the productivity and quality of workers, by complementing their skills with machines and computers, as well as enabling them to focus on those aspect of the job that most need their attention.

The advent of automated teller machines (ATMs) in the 1970s is a case in point. By 2010, there were approximately 400,000 ATMs in the US.  But, not only were bank tellers not eliminated, but their numbers actually rose modestly from 500,000 in 1980 to 550,000 in 2010, driven by two major forces. First, as a result of IT advances that  reduced the costs of operating a bank branch, the number of urban bank branches increased significantly by 2010. Second, while most of the routine cash-handling tasks of bank employees were automated by ATM technologies, IT-based innovations enabled a broader range of bank employees to become involved in relationship banking, providing a variety of relationship-based services to customers, including credit cards, personal loans, mortgages, and investment options.  

The Coming AI Revolution

“The Coming AI Economic Revolution: Can Artificial Intelligence Reverse the Productivity Slowdown?” was recently published in Foreign Affairs by James Manyika and Michael Spence, two authors I’ve long admired. James Manyika is senior VP of research, technology and society at Google, after serving  as chairman and director of the McKinsey Global Institute from 2009 to 2022. Michael Spence, a co-recipient of the 2001 Nobel Prize in Economics, is professor in economics and business at NYU’s Stern School of Business, and was previously professor of management and dean of the Stanford Graduate School of Business.

“By the beginning of the next decade, the shift to AI could become a leading driver of global prosperity,” wrote the authors. “The prospective gains to the world economy derive from the rapid advances in AI — now further expanded by generative AI, or AI that can create new content, and its potential applications in just about every aspect of human and economic activity. If these innovations can be harnessed, AI could reverse the long-term declines in productivity growth that many advanced economies now face.”

“This economic revolution will not happen on its own,” they added. Unleashing an AI-powered economy will require a new policy framework that fosters AI’s most productive uses and enhance human potential and ingenuity. “These policies must promote technologies that augment human capabilities rather than simply replace them; encourage AI’s widest possible implementation, both within and across different sectors, especially in areas that tend to have lower productivity; and ensure that firms and sectors undergo necessary process and organizational changes and innovations to effectively capitalize on AI’s potential.”

The Case for an AI-Powered Productivity Boom

“Large language models such as ChatGPT are emerging as powerful tools that not only make workers more productive but also increase the rate of innovation, laying the foundation for a significant acceleration in economic growth,” wrote economists Martin Neal Bailey, Erik Brynjolfsson, and Anton Korinek in “Machines of mind: The case for an AI-powered productivity boom,” a Brookings Institutions report. “However, official statistics will only partially capture the boost in productivity because the output of knowledge workers is difficult to measure. The rapid advances can have great benefits but may also lead to significant risks, so it is crucial to ensure that we steer progress in a direction that benefits all of society.”

The authors noted that generative AI systems are machines of the mind, increasingly capable of generating coherent and contextually appropriate text, images, videos, and audio, in a wide range of information-based tasks. Millions of knowledge workers, — from doctors and lawyers to managers and sales people, — will experience ground-breaking improvements in their productivity within a few years.

The World Ahead 2024: The World Is Changing at Mind-Boggling Speed

In mid-November, The Economist published “The World Ahead 2024,” its 38th annual issue that examines the trends and events that will likely shape the coming year. Last year, the overriding message from “The World Ahead 2023” was that after two years in which the pandemic was the dominating force shaping the immediate future, the war in Ukraine would be the main driver in 2023, causing the world to have to grapple with the conflict's impact on a series of unpredictable issues, incluging geopolitics, security, inflation, energy markets, and China’s post-pandemic path.

“Life comes at you fast,” wrote World Ahead editor Tom Sandage  in his introduction to the  “The World Ahead 2024.” “Whether it’s the upsurge in armed conflict, the redrawing of the global energy-resources map or rapid progress in artificial intelligence (AI), the world is changing at mind-boggling speed. From the situation in the Middle East to the adoption of electric vehicles to the treatment of obesity, things look very different from the way they did just a year or two ago.”

How Can Companies Figure Out How to Best Apply Generative AI?

“Business leaders are struggling to understand how seriously they should take the latest phenomenon in the world of artificial intelligence: generative AI,” wrote Andrew McAfee, Daniel Rock, and Erik Brynjolfsson in their recent Harvard Business Review (HBR) article “How to Capitalize on Generative AI.”  

“On one hand, it has already displayed a breathtaking ability to create new content such as music, speech, text, images, and video and is currently used, for instance, to write software, to transcribe physicians’ interactions with their patients, and to allow people to converse with a customer-relationship-management system. On the other hand, it is far from perfect: It sometimes produces distorted or entirely fabricated output and can be oblivious to privacy and copyright concerns.”

“Is generative AI’s importance overblown? Are its risks worth the potential rewards? How can companies figure out where best to apply it?,” the authors asked. To illustrate how to best answer these questions, the article references a recent research paper by Brynjolfsson and two collaborators, Generative AI at Work, which shows that there are ways to both reap the benefits of generative AI and contain its risks.

Is College Still a Good Investment?

In 2014, NY Times journalist David Leonhardt published a column with the provocative title: “Is College Worth It?” Despite the mounting debts incurred by many students to obtain a post-secondary education, “The decision not to attend college for fear that it’s a bad deal is among the most economically irrational decisions anybody could make in 2014. The much-discussed cost of college doesn’t change this fact.” According to a recent paper, said Leonhardt, “Over the long run, college is cheaper than free. Not going to college will cost you about half a million dollars.”

But, over the past few years, an increasing number of articles have questioned whether college is still a good investment. “Was your degree really worth it?,” is one such article, published earlier this year in The Economist. “That question once seemed a no-brainer,” said the article. “For decades young adults in rich countries have flocked to higher education. Governments have touted college as a boon for social mobility and economic growth. Yet as fees rise and graduate earnings stagnate, disillusionment is growing.”

The Economist cited a recent poll published in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) that found that a majority of Americans, 56%, think that a four-year degree is no longer worth the time and money, a marked reversal from the 53% of Americans who were bullish on college just a decade ago.

“Skepticism is strongest among people ages 18-34, and people with college degrees are among those whose opinions have soured the most, portending a profound shift for higher education in the years ahead,” wrote the WSJ. “Enrollment in U.S. colleges declined by about 15% over the last decade while the growth in alternative credentials, including apprenticeships, increased sharply. In 2017, doubt over the value of a college degree was greatest among men, Republicans and people living in rural areas. That disaffection preceded a widening gender gap in higher education as hundreds of thousands of men left college during the pandemic.”

Working With AI’s Human-Like Alien Intelligence

“When OpenAI unleashed its humanlike ChatGPT software on the world last year, one thing was clear: These AI systems are coming for our jobs. But don’t write off the humans just yet.” said “The New Jobs for Humans in the AI Era,” a WSJ article published on October 5. As has been the case with major technologies over the past two centuries, — e.g., steam power, electricity, the internet,  — AI will both threaten and lead to the creation of new jobs. While still in the early stages, “AI is already creating new opportunities,” said the article, mentioning a few of those new opportunities.

I found two of those new jobs particularly intriguing: prompt engineer and AI psychotherapist. Generative AI and large language models (LLM) are a new kind of human-like alien intelligence that even the people building them don’t really understand how they work. Researchers are attempting to unlock the AI black box in hopes of understanding how to best work with these powerful, alien technologies.

Let me discuss each of these two jobs.

Could Generative AI End Up Reducing the Growing Inequality in Labor Markets?

Over the past three decades, high skill jobs requiring expert problem solving and complex communication skills significantly expanded, with the earnings of the college educated workers needed to fill such jobs rising steadily. Conversely, opportunities and wages declined for less educated middle skill blue-collar manufacturing jobs and white-collar administrative jobs whose careers have been upended by automation.

“But the new kind of automation — artificial intelligence systems called large language models, like ChatGPT and Google’s Bard — is changing that,” noted a recent NY Times article, “In Reversal Because of A.I., Office Jobs Are Now More at Risk.” “These tools can rapidly process and synthesize information and generate new content. The jobs most exposed to automation now are office jobs, those that require more cognitive skills, creativity and high levels of education. The workers affected are likelier to be highly paid, and slightly likelier to be women, a variety of research has found.”

The NYT article referenced two that analyzed the occupations most exposed to AI, one from the Pew Research Center, the other from Goldman Sachs Research.

Reconciling a Puzzling Paradox: Slow Productivity Growth Despite Breakneck Technology Advances

“One of the most enduring macroeconomic puzzles of the last several decades is the pervasive slowdown in productivity growth across industrialized nations, despite breakneck advances in information and communication technologies (ICT) and electronics,” wrote economists Daron Acemoglu, David Autor, and Christina Patterson in their recent paper Bottlenecks: Sectoral Imbalance and the US Productivity Paradox.

Over the past three decades, ICT and electronics patents and productivity growth have been moving in starkly different directions. The total number of patents granted between 1990 and 2010 grew from 99,000 to 208,000, with ICT and electronics patents accounting for 80% of the increase. And, while total factor productivity (TFP), — generally considered the primary contributor to GDP growth, —grew by 1.7% in the US between 1997 and 2005, its growth has been minimal, just around 0.4% since 2005.

“How can these facts be reconciled?,” ask the authors. Are we in a “new age of abundance” driven by our increasingly smart machines? Or have we entered “an age of slower growth because the most-impactful technologies have already been developed and exploited?”

Jobs Expected to Grow and Jobs Expected to Decline Through 2030

“The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted labor markets globally during 2020,” said a February 2021 McKinsey report on “The future of work after COVID-19.” “The short-term consequences were sudden and often severe: Millions of people were furloughed or lost jobs, and others rapidly adjusted to working from home as offices closed. Many other workers were deemed essential and continued to work in hospitals and grocery stores, on garbage trucks and in warehouses, yet under new protocols to reduce the spread of the novel coronavirus.”

Two and a half years later, a recently published report by the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI), “Generative AI and the future of work in America,” paints a radically different picture: “the US job market has come roaring back from its sudden drop. The nature of work has changed as many workers have stuck with remote or hybrid models and employers have sped up their adoption of automation technologies. More recently, the accelerated development of generative AI, with its advanced natural language capabilities, has extended the possibilities for automation to a much wider set of occupations.”

The US labor market is now undergoing a rapid evolution in the way people work and the work people do. “Some 8.6 million occupational shifts took place from 2019 through 2022. Now even more change is in store. We expect an additional 12 million occupational shifts by 2030.”

The World Economic Five Year Jobs and Skills Outlook

Earlier this year, the World Economic Forum (WEF) published “The Future of Jobs Report 2023.” The WEF has been publishing Future of Jobs Reports since 2016 to explore how socio-economic and technology trends are likely to shape the evolution of jobs and skills over the following 5 years.

“In 2023, labour-market transformations driven by technological breakthroughs, such as the coming of age of generative artificial intelligence (AI), are being compounded by economic and geopolitical disruptions and growing social and environmental pressures,” wrote WEF Managing Director Saadia Zahidi in the Preface of the 2023 Report. Encompassing almost 300 pages, the report explores how jobs and skills are likely to evolve in the 2023-2027 period. Its trends and predictions are based on a survey of over 800 large companies which collectively employ over 11.3 million workers across 27 industry clusters and 45 economies from all around the world.

Let me discuss a few of the report’s key findings and predictions.

Answers from Gartner Experts to Key Enterprise Questions about Generative AI

“Worldwide IT spending is projected to total $4.7 trillion in 2023, an increase of 4.3% from 2022,” said Gartner in its July 19 forecast of IT spending. “As CIOs continue to lose the competition for IT talent, they are shifting spending to technologies that enable automation and efficiency to drive growth at scale with fewer employees.” The forecast adds that “While generative artificial intelligence (AI) is top of mind for many business and IT leaders, it is not yet significantly impacting IT spending levels. In the longer-term, generative AI will primarily be incorporated into enterprises through existing spending.”

The forecast includes a link to an excellent article, “Gartner Experts Answer the Top Generative AI Questions for Your Enterprise.” The overall assessment of the Gartner experts is that “Generative AI isn’t just a technology or a business case — it is a key part of a society in which people and machines work together.” Let me summarize their answers to some key questions.

What is Generative AI? In answer to a question or prompt, generative AI can create an impressive variety of content based on the characteristics of its training data, including images, videos, music, speech, text, software code and product designs. Generative AI is based on foundation models, - the name coined by the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence to large machine learning models that are trained on vast amounts of data, and can thus be adapted to a wide range of tasks.

Will Work from Home Stick?

Working from home (WFH) has been around for decades. The share of WFH three or more days per week was under 1% in 1980, growing modestly with the rise of the internet to 2.4% in 2010 and 4.0% in 2018. Then came Covid-19, forcing tens of millions around the world to work from home and triggering a mass workplace experiment that broke through the technological and cultural barriers that had prevented WFH adoption in the past.

Economists Jose Maria Barrero (Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México), Nicholas Bloom (Stanford University), and Stephen J. Davis (University of Chicago) have been tracking the evolution of WFH since May of 2020 by conducting monthly surveys. Their surveys ask a number of questions about working arrangements with WFH during the pandemic, as well as worker preferences and employer plans after the pandemic ends. Typical respondent are 40 to 50 years old, have one to three years of college, and earned $40 to $50 thousand in 2019.

One of their first surveys found that the percentage of paid full days worked from home once COVID hit in April of 2020 was 61.4%, a huge increase from their 4.8% WFH estimate just before COVID. The percentage then went down in subsequent months. One year later, in April of 2021, WFH was around 45%.

Productivity Gains of Generative AI for Software Developers

In June of 2023, McKinsey published “The Economic Potential of Generative AI: The Next Productivity Frontier.” Based on its analysis of 63 business use cases, and estimates of its effect on the productivity of the global workforce, McKinsey’s study projected that generative AI could add an additional $6.1 trillion to $7.9 trillion annually, boosting the overall impact of artificial intelligence on the global economy by an annual $17.1 trillion to $25.6 trillion.

The McKinsey study found that while generative AI use cases could have an impact on most enterprise business functions, four in particularly could account for approximately 75% of the total annual value from generative AI use cases: customer operations, marketing and sales, research and development, and software engineering.

Digital technologies, including advanced analytics and machine learning algorithms, have been applied to the first three functions for the past few decades, so it’s easier to understand how GenAI would build on previous work as well as give rise to innovative new advances. But that hasn’t quite been the case with software engineering.

In a recent article, “Quantifying the Productivity Gains of Generative AI for Developers,” IBM Fellow Jerry Cuomo nicely explained the role of generative AI in enhancing the productivity of software developers by examining the potential benefits for developers of varying experience levels, from novice to experts. Over the years, Cuomo has played a major role in a number of major software advances, from IBM’s WebSphere Application Server to open source Hyperledger blockchain technologies. He’s currently CTO in IBM's Consulting business unit where he’s responsible for AI-based automation technologies and strategy.

“The productivity gains enabled by the introduction of generative AI allow for a shift to value and create opportunities for increased innovation, improved quality, enhanced customer experience, and faster time-to-market,” wrote Cuomo. “Specifically, we estimate that generative AI can lead to a 15–20% increase in the number of new products or features developed, a 10–15% reduction in the number of bugs found in production, a 5–10% increase in customer retention and loyalty, and a 10–15% reduction in time-to-market for new products or features.”

Why Transformative AI Is So Hard to Achieve

“Humans have a good track record of innovation,” wrote Arjun Ramani and Zhengdong Wang in an essay which systematically explains “Why transformative artificial intelligence is really, really hard to achieve.” “The mechanization of agriculture, steam engines, electricity, modern medicine, computers, and the internet — these technologies radically changed the world. Still, the trend growth rate of GDP per capita in the world's frontier economy has never exceeded three percent per year.”

“Yet many people are optimistic that artificial intelligence is up to the job. AI is different from prior technologies, they say, because it is generally capable — able to perform a much wider range of tasks than previous technologies, including the process of innovation itself. Some think it could lead to a Moore’s Law for everything, or even risks on a par with those of pandemics and nuclear war.”

The essay consists of three sections: the transformational potential of AI is constrained by its hardest problems; major technical hurdles remain; and social and economic hurdles may limit AI’s impact. Let me summarize a few of the key arguments in each section.

What’s the Likely Long Term Evolution of AI?

Since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, general purpose technologies (GPTs) have been the defining technologies of their times. Their ability to support a large variety of applications can, over time, radically transform economies, and social institutions. GPTs have great potential from the outset, but realizing their potential takes large tangible and intangible investments and a fundamental rethinking of firms and industries, including new processes, management structures, business models, and worker training. As a result, realizing the potential of a GPT takes considerable time, often decades. Electricity, the internal combustion engine, computers, and the internet are all examples of historically transformative GPTs.

For example, after the introduction of electric power in the early 1880s, it took companies about four decades to figure out how to restructure their factories to harness electric power with manufacturing innovations like the assembly line. It took even longer to develop highly popular electric household products like refrigerators, toasters, washing machines, and air conditioners.

The internet’s precursor, ARPANET,  was initially developed by the US Department of Defense in the late 1960s for military and research applications. It wasn’t until the 1990s that the internet was opened up to companies and consumers in the wider commercial marketplace, becoming the most significant platform for innovation the world has ever since, and ushering a new 21st century digital economy.

Similarly, artificial intelligence first came to light in the mid-1950s as a promising new academic discipline that aimed to develop intelligent machines capable of handling human-like tasks like natural language and playing chess. AI became one of the most exciting areas in computer sciences in the 1960s, ’70s, and ’80s, but after years of unfulfilled promises and hype, a so called AI winter of reduced interest and funding that nearly killed the field set in everywhere.

How to Improve Enterprise Project Management As We Enter the Age of AI?

“Quietly but powerfully, projects have displaced operations as the economic engine of our times,” wrote Antonio Nieto-Rodriguez in “The Project Economy Has Arrived,” a December, 2021 article in the Harvard Business Review (HBR). Nieto-Rodriguez is a Fellow and past global chair of the Project Management Institute and the author of the Harvard Business Review Project Management Handbook: How to Launch, Lead, and Sponsor Successful Projects, on which the HBR article is based.

While that shift has been a long time coming, we still have a ways to go, he added. “According to the research firm the Standish Group, around 35% of the projects undertaken worldwide are successful. Given that we’re talking about tens of trillions of dollars, and the labor of millions of employees, that’s a mind-blowing number. It tells us that we’re not only wasting 65% of the time and money that we’ve invested in our projects but also forfeiting trillions of dollars of new value for organizations and society at large.”

A recent McKinsey global survey on the state of AI in the enterprise found that AI adoption has more than doubled over the past five years. Given that the survey was conducted in 2022, before the November 30 release of ChatGPT propelled AI to a whole new level of interest, we can expect a major increase in enterprise AI projects in the coming years. Nieto-Rodriguez's HBR article is thus particularly relevant as we enter the age of AI. 

“What exactly is a project?,” he asked in the article. While project is a word we all commonly use, the article points out that the word means different things to different people. “That’s a problem. As projects drive more and more of the value that organizations create, everyone needs to have a common understanding of what projects and project management are”:

“Projects involve a series of planned activities designed to generate a deliverable (a product, a service, an event). These activities — which can be anything from a grand strategic initiative to a small program of change — are limited in time. They have a clear start and end; they require an investment, in the form of capital and human resources; and they are designed to create predetermined forms of value, impact, and benefits. Every project has elements that are unique. That’s key: Each contains something that has not been done before.”

Risks and Opportunities in an Increasingly Complex AI World

On July 13 I participated in an online panel on Board Governance: Risks and Opportunities in a Complex World, sponsored by eCornell, Cornell University’s executive education unit. The panel was organized and moderated by LizAnn Eisen, acting professor of the practice at the Cornell Law School, and former corporate partner at Cravath.

In addition to me, panel members included Bill Priestap, former assistant director of the FBI, head of the FBI Counterintelligence Division and now founder of the risk consulting startup Trenchcoat Advisors; Noah Phillips, former commissioner at the FTC and now anti-trust partner at Cravath; and David Kappos, former director of the USPTO and now IP partner at Cravath.

The panelist discussed a range of topics that board members should pay attention to when considering risks and opportunities. Each of us foced on our respective areas of expertise. I discussed the potential business impact of artificial intelligence; Phillips focused on regulatory issues that are arising as AI is used in an increasing number of business applications, like the need for consumer protection; Kappos discussed the extensive IP and legal implications posed by AI; and Priestap focused on the challenges posed by an increasingly dangerous global geopolitical environment.

A recording of our panel can be found here.

The Economic Potential of Generative AI

In September of 2018, McKinsey published a report on the impact of AI on the world economy. The report’s overriding finding was that AI has the potential to incrementally add 16 percent or up to $15.4 trillion by 2030 to annual global economic output, — an average contribution to productivity growth of about 1.2 percent. McKinsey’s 2018 report was published before the advent of generative AI and related technologies lik large language models (LLMs) and chatbots like ChatGPT that have been taking AI to a whole new level in the past few years.

In June of 2023, McKinsey published, “The Economic Potential of Generative AI: The Next Productivity Frontier.” This new research study aims to take a first look at generative AI’s economic impact over and above the projections in its 2018 report. The 2023 report study evaluated the potential economic impact of generative AI by identifying 63 concrete use cases of generative AI that would lead to measurable outcomes. In addition, the study estimated how generative AI would affect the productivity of the global workforce by analyzing its potential impact on each of more that 2,100 detailed work activities across 850 occupations.

Not surprisingly given that generative AI is still in its early stages, the new report explains that “While generative AI is an exciting and rapidly advancing technology, the other applications of AI discussed in our previous report continue to account for the majority of the overall potential value of AI. Traditional advanced-analytics and machine learning algorithms are highly effective at performing numerical and optimization tasks such as predictive modeling, and they continue to find new applications in a wide range of industries. However, as generative AI continues to develop and mature, it has the potential to open wholly new frontiers in creativity and innovation.”

Looming Challenges Make US Productivity Growth an Imperative

“Labor productivity growth has been the engine of US economic power and prosperity since World War II, adding 2.2 percent annually to economic growth and contributing mightily to a 1.7 percent annual gain in real incomes,” said a recent report by the Mckinsey Global Institute, “Rekindling US productivity for a new era.” But since 2005, “US labor productivity has grown at a lackluster 1.4 percent. At the same time, real wages have slowed and workforce participation has declined.” Most OECD countries have seen similar declines in labor productivity growth over the past 15 years.

Regaining the historical 2.2 percent annual productivity growth rate would add $10 trillion to US GDP between now and 2030, — the equivalent of $15,000 per household, the report added. “Workforce shortages, debt, inflation, and the cost of the energy transition are powerful headwinds. All will be easier to confront with higher productivity.”

Rising labor productivity has not translated into broad increases in income over the past four decades. Between 1948 and 1970, productivity growth averaged 2.8% annually while incomes grew in lock-step at 3.0%. But then came the so-called great divergence, when real compensation lagged productivity growth.

The Current State of AI: A Tale of Two Worlds

What’s the current state of AI? I’ve been closely following AI over the past several years, and based on everything I’ve read and written about in my blog, the question brings to mind Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities.

We have in fact a tale of two very different AI worlds. Ever since OpenAI released ChatGPT a few months ago and encouraged the general public to try it, we’ve seen article after article about its emergent unexpected capabilities and potential existential risks. But, at the same time, most recent surveys of the state of AI in the enterprise have concluded that the majority of surveyed companies are still in the early stages of deployment and have not achieved significant outcomes.

For example, Stanford’s recently published 2023 AI Index Report found that industry was now leading the development of state-of-the-art large language models like GPT-4 and chatbots like ChatGPT. But at the same time, the Stanford report references the most recent McKinsey global survey on AI which found that while leading edge firms continue to pull ahead, the number of companies adopting AI has plateaued.

The global survey, “The State of AI in 2022 — and a Half Decade in Review,” marks the fifth consecutive year in which McKinsey has analyzed AI’s impact on companies around the world. The 2022 report is based on a survey of almost 1,500 firms from a variety of regions, industries, and company sizes. Only about half of respondents said that their organization have adopted AI in at least one function.

Let me summarize the report’s key findings.

The Evolution of Global Supply Chains in the 21st Century Digital Economy

“The societal and economic spasms of the early 2020s highlighted the crucial role of world-spanning supply chains in the modern global economy, as well as the growing role of digital technology, including A.I. and automation, in the future economy,” wrote MIT professor Yossi Sheffi in the Preface of his new book The Magic Conveyor Belt: Supply Chains, A.I. and the Future of Work. In the Preface, Sheffi succinctly stated that “The central purpose of supply chains is to fulfill the needs and wants of humanity — delivering all the food, medicine, energy, apparel, and other worldly goods need by the eight billion people in the planet.”

The 1990s ushered a golden age of globalization. The world seemed to be coming together. Thomas Friedman’s The World is Flat became an international best-seller in 2005 by nicely explaining what globalization was all about, including the key forces that contributed to flattening the world, - from the collapse of the Berlin Wall in November of 1989 to the rise of outsourcing, offshoring and global supply chains.

“The golden age of globalisation, in 1990-2010, was something to behold,” wrote The Economist in a January, 2019 article.  “Commerce soared as the cost of shifting goods in ships and planes fell, phone calls got cheaper, tariffs were cut and the financial system liberalised.” But, ever since the 2008 global financial crisis, globalization and global trade started to slow down. “Globalisation has slowed from light speed to a snail’s pace in the past decade for several reasons,” said The Economist.

Three major shocks have further reshaped globalization: the increasing trade wars and tariffs of the past five years, especially between the US and China; the disruptive impact of Covid-19 on global supply chains; and more recently, the war in Ukraine, which threatens to further decouple the world’s economy into a Western and a Chinese trading bloc. Mohamed El-Erian, one of the world’s most influential economic thinkers, said in a recent podcast interview, that the rewiring of global supply chains is one of the major drivers of major structural changes in the global economy.

Why Men and Boys Are Falling Behind

A few weeks ago, Richard Reeves was Ezra Klein’s guest in his NY Times podcast “The Men — and Boys — Are Not Alright.” Reeves is a writer and Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, where he’s been studying inequality, poverty, social mobility, and family policy. His book, — Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male Is Struggling, Why It Matters, and What to Do about It, published in September of 2022, — is based on his research on the growing gender gaps in education and employment.

“We’re used to thinking about gender inequality as a story of insufficient progress for women and girls,” wrote Klein in the podcast’s introduction. “There’s a good reason for that: Men have dominated human societies for centuries, and myriad inequalities — from the gender pay gap to the dearth of female politicians and chief executives — persist to this day.”

“But Reeves’ core argument is that there’s no way to fully understand inequality in America today without understanding the ways that men and boys — particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds — are falling behind. And they’re falling behind in ways that are tough on families, in ways that are tough on marriages, ways that are tough on children. And it gets much, much worse when you go down the income ladder.”

The 2023 AI Index Report: AI Has Moved Into Its Era of Deployment

The 2023 AI Index Report was released in early April by the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, it’s sixth annual analysis of the impact, progress, and trends of AI. Led by an interdisciplinary group of experts from across academia and industry, the report aims to be the world’s most authoritative source for data and insights about AI.

Last year’s report concluded that 2021 was the year that AI went from an emerging technology to a mature technology, no longer just a subject of speculative lab research but something with real-world economic impact, both positive and negative.

“AI has moved into its era of deployment; throughout 2022 and the beginning of 2023, new large-scale AI models have been released every month,” wrote the report’s co-directors Jack Clark and Ray Perrault about the 2023 report. “Policymakers are talking about AI more than ever before. Industry leaders that have integrated AI into their businesses are seeing tangible cost and revenue benefits. The number of AI publications and collaborations continues to increase. And the public is forming sharper opinions about AI and which elements they like or dislike.”

The Potential Impact of Large Language Models on Jobs

Throughout the Industrial Revolution there were periodic panics about the impact of automation on jobs, going back to the Luddites, - textile workers who in the 1810s smashed the new machines that were threatening their jobs. But each time those fears arose in the past, technology advances ended up creating more jobs than they destroyed.

Automation fears have understandbly accelerated in recent years, as our increasingly smart machines have been applied to activities requiring intelligence and cognitive capabilities that not long ago were viewed as the exclusive domain of humans. Over the past decade, powerful AI systems have matched or surpassed human levels of performance in a number of tasks such as image and speech recognition, skin cancer classification, breast cancer detection, and highly complex games like Go. More recently, large language models (LLMs) and chatbots like ChatGPT are taking AI-based automation to a whole new level.

 “OpenAI’s ChatGPT is the latest advance in a steady march of innovations that have offered the potential to transform many occupations and wipe out others, sometimes in tandem,” wrote journalists Lydia DePillis and Steve Lohr in “Tinkering With ChatGPT, Workers Wonder: Will This Take My Job?,” a recent NY Times article. “It is too early to tally the enabled and the endangered, or to gauge the overall impact on labor demand and productivity. But it seems clear that artificial intelligence will impinge on work in different ways than previous waves of technology.” In particular, AI is now “confronting white-collar professionals more directly than ever. It could make them more productive — or obsolete.”

The Widening Earnings Gap Between College and High School Graduates

“In one of the richest nations on earth, the path to prosperity has narrowed significantly in recent decades — especially for those without a college education,” wrote the NY Times in its January 28 editorial, “See Workers as Workers, Not as a College Credential.” “More than 62 percent of Americans ages 25 and up do not hold bachelor’s degrees, and the earnings gap between those with a college education and those without one has never been wider,” it said. “That’s happening even as the cost of college spirals upward, putting it out of reach for many. This has fueled anxiety, bitterness and a sense of alienation among the millions who see themselves as shut out of an economy that does not value them.”

The editorial cites data from the Federal Reserve Bank of NY showing that the wage gap between recent college and high school graduates hit a record high in 2021. In 1990 the median annual earnings of recent college graduates ages 22 to 27 with a full-time job was $48,900 for those with a bachelor’s degree and $35,300 for those with a high school diploma, a difference of $13,600. But in 2021, the median annual earnings for similar recent college graduates was $52,000 and $30,000 for those with a high school diploma, a difference of $22,000. Not only was the difference in earnings over 60% higher in 2021 than in 1990, but the median earnings for those with a high school diploma has decreased by 15% in the intervening three decades.

This is a stark example of the so-called great divergence of the past four decades. In the 30 years between 1948 and 1978, US productivity as measured by output per hour rose by 108%, an annual growth rate of 2.4%, while the average compensation of production workers increased in lock-step by 95%. But, between 1978 and 2016, productivity rose by 66%, an annual growth rate of 1.3%, while the median compensation of workers increased by only 9%. In other words, while the U.S. witnessed major technological innovations and productivity gains in the past four decades, the wages of workers in the middle have barely changed, with most of the wage benefits of higher productivity going to high earners. Other advanced economies have experienced similar economic, technological and global forces but their workers have fared much better.


Are GPT-3 and ChatGPT Truly Intelligent?

Large language models (LLMs) — e.g., BERT, GPT-3, — and chatbots like ChatGPT, are quite impressive. In the coming years, they will likely lead to a number of transformative tools and applications. They may well herald a coming AI revolution. But, how much closer are they getting us to the kind of general intelligence that, for the foreseeable future, only humans have? How can we best sort out their true significance and value from the accompanying hype? Let me discuss how two different articles addressed these questions.

“The success of the large neural language models on many NLP [Natural Language Processing] tasks is exciting” wrote linguistic professors Emiliy Bender and Alexander Koller in their 2020 paper “Climbing towards NLU: On Meaning, Form, and Understanding in the Age of Data.” “This has led to claims, in both academic and popular publications, that such models understand or comprehend natural language or learn its meaning. From our perspective, these are overclaims caused by a misunderstanding of the relationship between linguistic form and meaning.”

In their paper, Bender and Koller explain why LLMs like GPT-3 are likely to become innovative language tools, — kind of like highly advanced spell checkers or word processors, — while dismissing claims that they have the ability to reason and understand the meaning of the language they’re generating. Their explanations are couched in linguistic concepts which they carefully define: form, communicative intent, meaning, and understanding.

Management Priorities for Highly Turbulent Times

“The COVID-19 pandemic rewrote the rules, and now a new and potent disruption seems to arrive every other day,” said a recent McKinsey article, What matters most? Six priorities for CEOs in turbulent times. “You know the list of issues; we won’t go through them here. Suffice to say that managing complex organizations is much harder today than it was just a few years ago. And the hardest task of all for CEOs is to decide what needs to be done now and what can wait.”

To find out what matters most almost three years into the pandemic, McKinsey spoke with hundreds of leading CEOs around the world. Six priorities featured prominently on their agendas:

• Resilience. Not surprisingly, “resilience is emerging as a vital muscle for companies operating in a world of endless volatility and disruption.”
• Strategic Courage. “The best leaders and companies are ambidextrous: prudent about managing the downside while courageously pursuing the upside.”
• Building New Businesses. “Going for greatness within a company’s industry is one thing. Venturing into an entirely different sector is another, more complicated story.”
• Technology. “Building a new business inevitably means new and better technology.” 
• Net-zero emissions. “[T]he goals of sustainability, economic competitiveness, affordability, and national security dovetail as never before.”
• Rebuild the employee experience. “In the wake (we hope) of the COVID-19 pandemic, CEOs need to find a new plane of engagement.”

Are Business Schools to Blame for Wage Stagnation?

Several weeks ago I listened to a very interesting podcast, Are MBAs to Blame for Wage Stagnation, with Freakonomics Radio host, Stephen Dubner and MIT economist Daron Acemoglu. The podcast discussed a working paper by Acemoglu, Alex He, and Daniel le Maire on the effect of a CEO’s education on the wages of their company’s employees that was recently published in the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).

In the podcast, Acemoglu noted that over the last few decades, wages have grown much slower than productivity, — a development that has long puzzled economists. “If you look at the real wages of workers with a high school degree, it increased about 2.5% a year in real terms between1945 and the late 1970s — a remarkable increase,” he said. “Since 1980, it has been declining in real terms every year. So a large fraction of the U.S. population has been becoming poorer and poorer, even as we are building the most amazing technologies, the largest companies humanity has seen, the most modern economy.”

The labor share, — that is, the share of GDP that goes to workers, — declined from 63% in the 1980s to 58% in 2020. And during those same four decades, the share of US firms that were run by a business manager, — that is, an executive with an MBA or some other business degree, — increased from 25% in the 1980s to over 40% in 2020. Were these two trends connected? “Did the professionalization of the managerial class cause the labor share to fall? The answer wasn’t obvious.”

To shed light on this question, Acemoglu and his collaborators analyzed US and Danish data, including firm- and worker-level information. They chose Denmark, in addition to the US, because the country has very high-quality data that makes it possible to do a lot of analysis that would be harder to do with US data alone. Their methodology was very simple. They essentially tracked what happens to the earnings of the same workers when there is a switch in the type of manager leading their company, i.e., from a business to a non-business manager and vice versa.

Is AI (Finally) Coming of Age?

Artificial intelligence first came to light in the mid-1950s as a promising new academic discipline. AI became one of the most exciting areas in computer sciences over the next two decades. But, after years of unfulfilled promises and hype, a couple of so called AI winters of reduced interest and funding set in that nearly killed the field. AI was successfully reborn in the 1990s with a new statistical paradigm based on analyzing large amounts of data with powerful computers and sophisticated algorithms. Now, six decades after the field was founded, AI seems to be finally coming of age.

“2021 saw the globalization and industrialization of AI intensify, while the ethical and regulatory issues of these technologies multiplied,” said the 2022 AI Index report on the progress of AI, which was released in March of 2022 by Stanford’s Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HAI). “2021 was the year that AI went from an emerging technology to a mature technology - we’re no longer dealing with a speculative part of scientific research, but instead something that has real-world impact, both positive and negative,” wrote Jack Clark, co-chair of the AI Index. Multiple factors led to his conclusion, in particular the advent of foundation models like OpenAI’s GPT-3 and Google’s BERT.

In the past decade, increasingly powerful AI systems have matched or surpassed human levels of performance in a number of specific tasks like image and speech recognition. These task-specific deep learning (DL) systems have generally relied on supervised learning, a training method where the data must be carefully labelled, - e.g., cat, not-cat, - thus requiring a big investment in time and money to produce a model that’s narrowly focused on one task and can’t be easily repurposed.

Foundation models have gotten around these DL limitations based on two recent advances, transfer learning and huge scale. Transfer learning takes the knowledge learned from training a specific task and applies it to different but related tasks, - such as using the training in recognizing cars in images and applying it to recognizing trucks and buses. As a result, foundation models can be adapted to many different tasks with relatively small amounts of fine-tuning.

Culture: The Software of the Mind

Several weeks ago I listened to a very interesting Freakonomics podcast hosted by Stephen Dubner. “According to a decades-long research project, the U.S. is not only the most individualistic country on earth; we’re also high on indulgence, short-term thinking, and masculinity,” said Dubner. The podcast included comments from a number of social scientists but was particularly focused on the work of Gert Jan Hofstede, social sciences professor  at Wageningen University in the Netherlands, whose research is focused on artificial sociality, - the study of human social behavior based on computational models. He's continued to lead a major research project on national cultures started more than 50 years ago by his father Geert Hofstede who passed away in 2020.

“Every person carries within him- or herself patterns of thinking, feeling, and potential acting that were learned throughout the person’s lifetime,” wrote the Hofstedes in their 2011 book Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, coauthored with Michael Minkov. “Much of it was acquired in early childhood, because at that time a person is most susceptible to learning and assimilating. As soon as certain patterns of thinking, feeling, and acting have established themselves within a person’s mind, he or she must unlearn these patterns before being able to learn something different, and unlearning is more difficult than learning for the first time.”

The thinking patterns that guide our behaviors can be thought of as mental programs, a kind of software of the mind. “This does not mean, of course, that people are programmed the way computers are,” said the authors. “A person’s behavior is only partially predetermined by his or her mental programs: he or she has a basic ability to deviate from them and to react in ways that are new, creative, destructive, or unexpected.” Culture, the software of the mind, “only indicates what reactions are likely and understandable, given one’s past.”

In the podcast, Gert Jan Hofstede discussed the power of culture: “It is what we got fed with our mother’s milk and the porridge that our dad gave us. … If you’re part of a society, you’re like one drop in the Mississippi River. You may decide to go another way, but that doesn’t make the river change. So we’re all constraining one another through our collective culture.”

The Changing Structure of Global Supply Chains

“The golden age of globalisation, in 1990-2010, was something to behold,” wrote The Economist in a January, 2019 article.  “Commerce soared as the cost of shifting goods in ships and planes fell, phone calls got cheaper, tariffs were cut and the financial system liberalised.” The very nature of the global firm was transformed during these two decades, with The Globally Integrated Enterprise destined to become the corporate model of the future, said IBM CEO Sam Palmisano in a 2006 Foreign Affairs article.

But, then global trade started slow down. “After the go-go 1990s and 2000s the pace of economic integration stalled in the 2010s, as firms grappled with the aftershocks of a financial crisis, a populist revolt against open borders and President Donald Trump’s trade war,” wrote The Economist in its June 18, 2022 lead article. “The flow of goods and capital stagnated. Many bosses postponed big decisions on investing abroad: just-in-time gave way to wait-and-see. No one knew if globalisation faced a blip or extinction.”

“Now the waiting is over, as the pandemic and war in Ukraine have triggered a once-in-a-generation reimagining of global capitalism in boardrooms and governments,” added the article. “Everywhere you look, supply chains are being transformed, from the $9trn in inventories, stockpiled as insurance against shortages and inflation, to the fight for workers as global firms shift from China into Vietnam. This new kind of globalisation is about security, not efficiency: it prioritises doing business with people you can rely on, in countries your government is friendly with.”

Most everyone agrees that global supply chains will be restructured over the next decade, accelerating the changes that were already in motion. “Decision-makers are increasingly concerned that supply chains should be robust, not just efficient,” said the briefing article in the same Economist issue. “As a result they are choosing to depend less on jurisdictions where they are exposed to risk. And countries are experimenting with industrial policies aimed at self-reliance or international pre-eminence in at least some ‘strategic’ technologies and businesses.” Let me discuss each of these potential changes.

The Latest Trends in Work from Home (WFH)

For years, companies and governments found all kinds of reasons for not embracing work from home, virtual meetings, telemedicine, online learning, and other online applications. But, the pandemic forced us to accelerate the digital transformation of the economy and society to help us cope with the crisis. And, not only have these digital applications worked remarkably well, but they offer a number of important benefits, like not waiting for a straightforward doctor diagnosis in a room full of sick people, and not having to travel for hours to participate in a 60 minute meeting.

For example, about a year ago I participated in an online panel. To start with, the moderator asked each panelist to introduce ourselves and to briefly say something positive about our lives over the past year despite the obvious challenges of coping with Covid. I truly struggled to find something positive to say about the highly frustrating pandemic-induced limitations of the previous year.

But finally, I did find something positive to say. I’ve been able to attend a number of meetings, including weekly lunch seminars, that pre-pandemic required me to drive for a few hours or catch a plane. In response to the pandemic, these meeting first changed from physical to online, and more recently to hybrid. In other words, my ability to attend such meetings from home was my one pandemic-induced benefit, a major one the more I thought about it.

Work from home (WFH) has been around for decades, modestly growing in the 1990s with the rise of the internet. The share of WFH three or more days per week was under 1% in 1980, 2.4% in 2010, and 4.0% in 2018. Then came Covid-19, forcing tens of millions around the world to work from home and triggering a mass workplace experiment that broke through the technological and cultural barriers that had prevented its adoption in the past.

The Recent Impact of AI on Jobs and Economies

“Recent developments in Artificial Intelligence (AI) have stoked new fears about large-scale job loss, stemming from its ability to automate a rapidly expanding set of tasks (including non-routine cognitive tasks), and its potential to affect every sector of the economy,” said The impact of Artificial Intelligence on the labour market: What do we know so far?, a recently published report by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Founded in 1961 to stimulate economic progress and world trade, the OECD now has 38 member countries around the world.

“Furthermore, there are concerns about employee well-being and the broader work environment, linked to the idea that AI may soon become pervasive in the workplace and threaten and undermine humans’ place in it,” noted the report. “However, AI also has the potential to complement and augment human capabilities, leading to higher productivity, greater demand for human labour and improved job quality.”

A number of recent studies have focused on the impact of AI on the future of work. For example, in the spring of 2018, MIT launched a task force on the Work of the Future to understand whether and how our current period of technological disruption differs from prior industrial epochs. The task force final report, The Work of the Future: Building Better Jobs in an Age of Intelligent Machines, released in November of 2020, concluded that:

 “No compelling historical or contemporary evidence suggests that technological advances are driving us toward a jobless future. On the contrary, we anticipate that in the next two decades, industrialized countries will have more job openings than workers to fill them, and that robotics and automation will play an increasingly crucial role in closing these gaps. Nevertheless, the impact of robotics and automation on workers will not be benign. These technologies, in concert with economic incentives, policy choices, and institutional forces, will alter the set of jobs available and the skills they demand.”

Human Capital: The Value of Work Experience and Continuous Learning

“The most important resource in any economy or organization is its human capital - that is, the collective knowledge, attributes, skills, experience, and health of the workforce,” said Human capital at work: The value of experience, a recent research report by the McKinsey Global Institute. Human capital development starts in early childhood, continues through formal educations, and grows as a person acquires and deploys new skills through their working life. The value of human capital can be approximated by an individual’s lifetime earnings, and represents roughly two-thirds of their total wealth.

“Human capital is much more than a macroeconomic abstraction,” notes the report. “Each person has a unique, living, breathing set of capabilities. They belong to the individual, who decides where to put them to work. The degree of choice is not limitless, of course. People are the products of geography, family, and education; their starting points matter. Having career options also depends on an individual’s abilities and attributes, their networks, their family obligations, the health of the broader labor market, and societal factors. While we recognize these constraints, career moves are nevertheless an important mechanism for expanding skills and increasing earnings.”

McKinsey’s study is focused on the contributions of work experience to a person’s human capital. The research analyzed a dataset containing the de-identified histories of all the job moves made by about a million workers in each of four countries: the US, UK, Germany, and India. The study traced the work history of each individual and their lifetime earnings starting with the first job after the last degree obtained and after all subsequent role moves. For each role move, the study estimated its skill distance, defined as the the opportunity to acquire new and additional skills in the new job. Finally, the study calculated both the share of lifetime earnings attributed to the entry-level skills acquired through formal education, and the share of lifetime earnings attributed to work experience.

The Powerful Human Forces Driving the End of Globalization

“I can remember a time  - about a quarter-century ago - when the world seemed to be coming together,” wrote NY Times columnist David Brooks in a recent essay, Globalization Is Over. The Global Culture Wars Have Begun. “The great Cold War contest between communism and capitalism appeared to be over. Democracy was still spreading. Nations were becoming more economically interdependent. The internet seemed ready to foster worldwide communications. It seemed as if there would be a global convergence around a set of universal values - freedom, equality, personal dignity, pluralism, human rights.”

“We called this process of convergence globalization,” he added. “It was, first of all, an economic and a technological process - about growing trade and investment between nations and the spread of technologies that put, say, Wikipedia instantly at our fingertips.”

The 1990s ushered a golden age of globalization, when the world seemed indeed to be coming together. Thomas Friedman’s The World is Flat became an international best-seller in 2005 by nicely explaining what globalization was all about, including the key forces that contributed to flattening the world, - from the collapse of the Berlin Wall in November of 1989 and the Netscape IPO in August of 1995, to the rise of outsourcing, offshoring and global supply chains.

But, ever since the 2008 global financial crisis, globalization and global trade started to slow down. “Globalisation has slowed from light speed to a snail’s pace in the past decade for several reasons,” wrote The Economist in a 2019 article. “The cost of moving goods has stopped falling. Multinational firms have found that global sprawl burns money and that local rivals often eat them alive. Activity is shifting towards services, which are harder to sell across borders: scissors can be exported in 20ft-containers, hair stylists cannot.”