Irving Wladawsky-Berger

Automation and the Changing Demand for Workforce Skills

In 2015, the McKinsey Global Institute launched a multi-year study to explore the potential impact of automation technologies on jobs, organizations and the future of work.  In the intervening three years, the study has published a number of report on the subject.

The first report, published in November, 2015, explored whether we can look forward to vast improvements in productivity and quality of life, or whether automation will mostly threaten jobs, disrupt organizations, and strain the social fabric.  Based on an analysis of around 2,000 work activities across 800 different occupations, the report concluded that “fewer than 5 percent of occupations can be entirely automated using current technology.  However, about 60 percent of occupations could have 30 percent or more of their constituent activities automated.”  In other words, relatively few jobs will be entirely automated, but automation will likely transform the vast majority of occupations.

McKinsey’s December, 2017 report analyzed whether there will be enough work in the future.  The overall conclusion was that a growing technology-based economy will create a significant number of new occupations, - as has been the case in the past, - which will more than offset declines in occupations displaced by automation.  However, “while there may be enough work to maintain full employment to 2030 under most scenarios, the transitions will be very challenging - matching or even exceeding the scale of shifts out of agriculture and manufacturing we have seen in the past.”

Let me now discuss the more recent report published earlier this year, which examined the changes in skills required of human workers over the next 10-15 years.  To do so, the study analyzed how the total number of hours worked in 25 different skill areas has changed between 2002 and 2016 and estimated the expected change in hours worked by 2030.  This was done for the US and 5 Western European countries.  I’ll focus my discussion on the US skill changes, as the European changes were similar.

Solow Paradox 2.0: The Lagging Impact of Technology Advances on Productivity Growth

Fewer workers is one of the key reasons for our stagnant economic growth.  Over the coming decades, the labor force is expected to shrink in most parts of the world as fertility rates continue to decline, especially in advanced and emerging economies.  The US labor force is growing very slowly while fertility rates keep hitting record lows.

Our aging economies are thus dependent on productivity gains to drive long-term economic growth, future prosperity and higher standards of living.  Which is why few topics have generated as much concern among economists and policy makers as the sharp decline in productivity growth in the US and other advanced economies over the past decade, - despite accelerating technology advances.

“Labor productivity growth is near historic lows in the United States and much of Western Europe,” noted Solving the Productivity Puzzle, a report published earlier this year by the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI).  The report analyzed the productivity-growth declines across a sample of seven countries, - France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States, - which represent about 65% of the GDP of advanced economies.  Their average productivity growth in the 5 years between 2000 and 2004 was 2.4%.  A decade later, - in the 5 year period between 2010 and 2014, - their average productivity growth had declined to .5%.  While starting to pick up recently, productivity growth remains at or below 1 percent in many of the countries in the study, still quite low relative to historical levels.

The Myth of the Washed-Up, Middle-Age Entrepreneur

Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerberg were in their early 20s; Sergei Brin and Larry Page were 25; and Jeff Bezos was just 30 when they founded their world leading high-tech companies.  Their companies are truly in a class by themselves, even having their own, somewhat frightful acronym - FAMGA.  Their founders’ ages are not only evidence that young people can be highly successful entrepreneurs, but it’s led to the belief that they’re uniquely capable of coming up with big, transformational ideas.

“Young people are just smarter,” Zuckerberg told the audience of a 2007 VC conference, adding that successful start-ups should only employ young people with technical expertise.  In 2010, PayPal’s co-founder Peter Thiel created the Thiel Fellowships, a program that provides $100,000 over two years to would-be entrepreneurs 23 and under so they can drop out of school to work on their ideas.  “The stereotype of an entrepreneur is a college drop-out,” said a recent Economist article.

“Silicon Valley has become one of the most ageist places in America,” noted a 2014 New Republic article on The Brutal Ageism of Tech, where years of experience are considered obsolete.  “People under 35 are the people who make change happen,” said VC Vinod Khosla at a 2011 conference.  “People over 45 basically die in terms of new ideas” because they “keep falling back on old habits.”  Entrepreneur and VC Paul Graham said in a 2013 interview that investors tend to be biased against older founders.  “The cutoff in investors’ heads is 32… after 32, they start to be a little skeptical.”

These various statements remind me of the 1960s counterculture saying don’t trust anyone over 30.  But, are they justified?  Are young entrepreneurs more likely to produce high-growth firms?  Can middle-age founders in their 40s be successful? 

AI - the Creation of a Human-Centric Engineering Discipline

AI is rapidly becoming one of the most important technologies of our era.  Every day we can read about the latest AI advances from startups and large companies, including applications that not long ago were viewed as the exclusive domain of humans.  Over the past few years, the necessary ingredients have finally come together to propel AI beyond the research labs into the marketplace: powerful, inexpensive computer technologies; huge amounts of data; and advanced algorithms.

Machine learning  and related algorithms like deep learning, have played a major role in AI’s recent achievements.  Machine learning gives computers the ability to learn by ingesting and analyzing large amounts of data instead of being explicitly programmed.  It’s enabled the construction of AI algorithms that can be trained with lots and lots of sample inputs, which are subsequently applied to difficult AI problems like language translation, natural language processing, and playing championship-level Go.

Over the past several decades, AI has been besieged by rounds of hype which over-promised, under-delivered, and nearly killed the field.  Once more, a recent Gartner article positioned machine and deep learning at the top of their hype cycle, - when all the excitement, publicity and promising potential often leads to a peak of inflated expectations, risking falling into the trough of disillusionment if the technology fails to deliver.  Now that AI is finally reaching a tipping point of market acceptance, it’s particularly important to be cautious and not repeat past mistakes.

In Artificial Intelligence - The Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet, UC Berkeley professor Michael I. Jordan aims to inject such a note of caution.  “AI has now become the mantra of our current era…  The idea that our era is somehow seeing the emergence of an intelligence in silicon that rivals our own entertains all of us  -  enthralling us and frightening us in equal measure.  And, unfortunately, it distracts us…  Whether or not we come to understand intelligence any time soon, we do have a major challenge on our hands in bringing together computers and humans in ways that enhance human life.”

The Transformative Power of Analytics - The Houston Astros: a Case Study

In 2013, the Houston Astros finished the season with a 51-111 record, - the worst record in the history of the franchise, having also lost over 100 games in the previous two years.  In 2017, the Astros won 101 games, finished first in the American League West Division, and went on to win their first ever World Series.  How did the Astros go from worst team record to first World Series victory in only four years?

The answer, in a nutshell, is analytics.  In December, 2011 the Astros hired Jeff Luhnow from the St Louis Cardinals as their General Manager.  As VP of scouting and player development in St Louis, Luhnow built a strong analytics department and enjoyed great success as one of the top talent producers in baseball, helping the Cardinals win the 2011 World Series as well as reach the playoffs from 2012 to 2015.  Luhnow then brought his analytics and management skills to Houston and proceeded to transform the team into a top contender in a short few years.

Today, just every major sports team makes extensive use of sports analytics, but none more so than Major League Baseball (MLB) teams.  Baseball has long been a game of statistics, collecting and analyzing vast amounts of data going back to the founding of the MLB in the years following the Civil War. 

Top MLB players are constantly compared not just to other contemporaneous players, but to other top players across the long history of the game, - a history that was very nicely depicted in Baseball, Ken Burns excellent documentary miniseries. Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, Hank Aaron and countless other players are never forgotten in the world of baseball statistics.  For those of us who are fans, - as I am, not surprisingly given my Cuban roots, - baseball’s rich history is a major part of our enjoyment of the game. 

Getting on the AI Learning Curve: A Pragmatic, Incremental Approach

After decades of promise and hype, AI is now seemingly everywhere.  Over the past several years, the necessary ingredients have come together to propel AI beyond the research labs into the marketplace: powerful, inexpensive computer technologies; huge amounts of data; and advanced algorithms including machine learning.

While AI is likely to become one of the most important technologies of our era, we’re still in the early stages of deployment, especially outside leading-edge technology companies.  But, as AI continues its rapid progress, it’s not too early to ask a few important questions: What is AI’s overall value to the economy? What are the biggest application opportunities?; and, what are AI’s most serious challenges and limitations?

To address these questions, McKinsey recently published a discussion paper on the marketplace potential of AI.  The paper is particularly focused on machine learning and related technologies, and is based on a detail analysis of more that 400 use cases across 19 industries and 9 business functions.

“Two-thirds of the opportunities to use AI are in improving the performance of existing analytical use cases,” is the paper’s overriding finding.  This is a very interesting insight.  AI is now being successfully applied to tasks that not long ago were viewed as the exclusive domain of humans, - machine translation, natural language processing, defeating the world’s top Go players, - but only 16% of the use cases studied by McKinsey are greenfield cases, where only machine learning techniques can be used.  For the vast majority of the use cases, 69%, the key value of machine learning is to improve performance beyond that provided by traditional analytic techniques.  And, in the remaining 15% of cases, machine learning provided limited additional performance over existing analytical methods. 

Education, Work and US Leadership in the 21st Century

A few weeks ago, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) released The Work Ahead - Machines, Skills, and U.S. Leadership in the Twenty-First Century, a report by a CFR-sponsored Task Force to assess the future of work and its implications for the US economy and national security.  The Task Force was led by Penny Pritzker, - former Secretary of Commerce and founder and chair of PSP Partners, and by John Engler, - former Governor of Michigan and interim President of Michigan State University.

Their comprehensive report, - over 150 pages and 276 citations, - explored in great depth the changing nature of work as global competition and advanced technologies like AI, robotics, and smart IoT devices transform jobs and careers.  It states right up front that “The most important challenge facing the United States - given the seismic forces of innovation, automation, and globalization that are changing the nature of work - is to create better pathways for all Americans to adapt and thrive.  The country’s future as a stable, strong nation willing and able to devote the necessary resources and attention to meeting international challenges depends on rebuilding the links among work, opportunity, and economic security.”

For much of the 20th century, technology and globalization helped lead America to its leadership position in the world stage.  Underpinning this US leadership was the American Dream, - the promise that anyone can get ahead and achieve success and prosperity through talent and hard work.  But this promise has been eroding for decades.  For many of its citizens, the American Dream has been steadily disappearing.

Technology advances have led to massive innovations and efficiencies, enabling companies to get the same work done with significantly fewer people.  At the same time, many US-headquartered companies are truly global, doing business all over the world.  Beyond outsourcing jobs to countries with lower labor costs they’ve been investing and adding jobs where the demand is highest, - which has often been in faster growing emerging markets.

The US thus faces two major challenges: “creating new work opportunities, better career paths, and higher incomes for its people, while developing a workforce that will ensure U.S. competitive success in a global economy that will continue to be reshaped by technology and trade.” 

The 2018 Inclusive Internet Index

Earlier this year, the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) published the Inclusive Internet Index 2018.  Now in its second year, the Index analyzes and compares the current state of the Internet across 86 countries, ranging from advanced to developing economies and covering 91% of the world’s population.  Its key objective is to help policymakers understand the key factors necessary for the wide, inclusive use of the Internet in their respective countries.

Countries are evaluated based on 54 indicators organized around four major categories:

• Availability,  which captures the quality of breadth of the infrastructure available for Internet access, including network availability, access points for landline and mobile connections, and the basic electricity infrastructure needed to support Internet connectivity in urban and rural areas.
• Affordability, which measures the cost of Internet access relative to income, the competitive environment for wireless and broadband operators and the measures taken to decrease costs and promote access.
• Relevance, which looks at the availability of Internet content in the local language(s) and the value of being connected to get access to relevant services like news, entertainment, health advice and business and financial information.
• Readiness, which examines the capacity to take advantage of accessing the Internet, including level of literacy, educational attainment, cultural acceptance, privacy and security, and trust in the sources of online information.

Each country is assigned a score for each of the four categories, as well as an overall index score. 

Harnessing the Collective Intelligence of Humans and Machines

For over a decade, MIT professor Thomas Malone has been conducting pioneering research on the collective intelligence of groups.  Malone is the founding director of the MIT Center for Collective Intelligence, and has authored and co-authored a number of seminal articles on the subject.  A few weeks ago, Malone published Superminds: The Surprising Power of People and Computers Thinking Together, - a book that nicely explains the concept of collective intelligence and how our increasingly capable machines are now complementing the intelligence of groups of people.  The book illustrates these concepts with a wide variety of examples and case studies.

He defines a supermind as “a group of individuals acting in ways that seem intelligent.”  A supermind has measurable properties just as individual do.  It can have a life of its own beyond those of its individuals constituents.  And, as Malone points out, throughout history, groups of people working together as superminds have been responsible for the vast majority of human achievements. 

Human-Machine Work Teams

Will there be enough work in the future?  What’s the likely impact of our continuing technology advances on jobs?  How will they impact productivity?  These are all-important questions to reflect on as our increasingly smart technologies are now being applied to activities that not long ago were viewed as the exclusive domain of humans.

While no one really knows the answer to these questions, most studies of the subject have concluded that relatively few occupations, 10% or less, will be entirely automated and disappear over the next 10 - 15 years.  Instead, a growing percentage of occupations will significantly change as technologies automate the more routines tasks within those occupations.  People will still be involved, but their jobs will be transformed by the advanced tools they now have to master.  Moreover, a growing technology-based economy will likely create all kinds of new occupations, which will more than offset declines in occupations displaced by automation, - as has been the case over the past couple of centuries.

One would also expect that technology advances will increase the productivity of the workers involved in these new or transformed occupations.  But, if we look at the past 10-15 for guidance, we’ll find that productivity growth has significantly declined over this timeframe, notwithstanding huge technology advances like smartphones, cloud computing, big data and artificial intelligence.  Economist have proposed competing explanations for the declining productivity growth, but have so far failed to reach consensus.  Understanding this productivity puzzle may well hold the key to future productivity improvements and long-term economic growth.

The Promise and Current State of Blockchain

I recently participated in a blockchain panel at a conference of senior supply chain executives from a variety of companies.  I welcomed the opportunity to learn how these real-world executives feel about blockchain, as well as how to best communicate the promise and current state of this emerging and potentially transformative technology.  Let me share a few of my observations.

Before our panel started, the executives were asked how they viewed blockchain.  In general, they felt that there was too much hype surrounding blockchain, were skeptical about its value to supply chain systems, but expressed a wait-and-see attitude.  They were then asked how many were conducting blockchain prototypes in their companies.  The majority raised their hands. 

I thought that their views and subsequent questions and comments during the panel succinctly captures the current state of blockchain in the business world: skeptical, turned off by the hype, but hedging their bets by getting on the learning curve with prototypes and experimentation.

The moderator first asked each panelist to address the audience’s skepticism about blockchain.  What, in our opinion, is the key value of blockchain?  I said that I look at the value of blockchain through two complementary lenses: enhancing the security of the Internet, and reducing the inefficiencies and overheads in applications, like supply chains, involving multiple institutions.

The Growing Importance of Resilience in an Increasinsgly Turbulent World

In March of 2017, Northeastern University launched a new interdisciplinary initiative, the Global Resilience Institute (GRI).  GRI is a university-wide research and educational effort to advance the resilience of individuals, communities, economies and societies around the world by strengthening their capacity to adapt to an increasingly turbulent world.  Its key mission is to develop and deploy practical tools, applications and skills to help effectively respond to human-made and naturally-occurring disruptions and disasters.

GRI’s Founding Director is Northeastern professor Stephen Flynn.  In his Director’s Welcome web page, Flynn writes that “Building resilience within and across multiple levels, from individual to societal, requires a comprehensive effort that matches the complexity of the increasingly interdependent systems and networks we all rely on… Our aim is to serve as both a channel and a catalyst for experts in industry, academia, and government to collaborate on solving the world’s most pressing resilience challenges.  These include both slowly emerging disruptions as well as shocks and sudden disasters.”

Most everyone agrees that dealing with our increasingly turbulent, complex world us requires significant enhancements to the resilience of our societies and systems.  But, five critical barriers stand in the way:

• Widespread risk illiteracy and a limited understanding of the new dependencies and interdependencies that pervade our more connected lives;
• Inadequate designs for embedding resilience into systems, networks, and infrastructure at multiple levels;
• Pervasive economic disincentives for investing in proven resilience measures;
• Inadequate governance frameworks and policy guidance to foster resilience; and
• A lack of adequate training and education to support the development and implementation of comprehensive capabilities for advancing resilience.

Human + Machine: The Impact of AI on Business Transformation

Last week I wrote about the impact of blockchain technologies on business transformation.  I now want to turn my attention to the more immediate impact of AI on business, based on Human + Machine: Reimagining Work in the Age of AI, a recently published book by Accenture executives Paul Daugherty and Jim Wilson.

The book reminds us that technology has long been transforming business.  Electricity and standardized processes ushered the first wave of business transformations about 100 years ago.  Manufacturing was decomposed into a set of processes and reassembled into the assembly line, leading to the age of mass production.

Several decades later, IT and process automation brought us the second wave of business transformation.  Mainframes and data processing software enabled the automation of back-office processes in the 1960s and 1970s.  Front-office automation followed in the 1980s with the advent of PCs and client-server systems.  A decade later, advances in networking and ERP software led to  business process reengineering and management. 

“Now, the third wave involves adaptive processes,” write Daugherty and Wilson.  “This third era, which builds on the previous two, will be more dramatic than the earlier revolutions enabled by assembly lines and digital computers, and will usher in entirely new, innovative ways of doing business… This adaptive capability is being driven by real-time data rather than by an a priori sequence of steps.   The paradox is that although these processes are not standardized or routine, they can repeatedly deliver better outcomes.”

The MIT Intelligence Quest

How does human intelligence work, in biological as well as in engineering terms? And how can we use such an understanding of human intelligence to build wiser and more useful machines?  On February 1, MIT launched the Intelligence Quest (MIT IQ), - an initiative aimed at addressing these big questions by advancing the science and engineering of both human and machine intelligence.  MIT IQ aims “to discover the foundations of human intelligence and drive the development of technological tools that can positively influence virtually every aspect of society.”

MIT has been deeply involved in artificial intelligence since the field’s inception in the 1950s.  MIT professors  John McCarthy and Marvin Minsky were among the founders and most prominent leaders of the new discipline.  AI was one of the most exciting areas in computer sciences in the 1960s and 1970s.  Many of the AI leaders in those days were convinced that a machine as intelligent as a human being would be developed within a couple of decades.  They were trying to do so by somehow programming the machines to exhibit intelligent behavior, even though to this day we have little idea what intelligence is about, let alone how to translate intelligence into a set of instructions to be executed by a machine.  Eventually, all these early AI approaches met with disappointment and were abandoned in the 1980s.  After years of unfulfilled promises, a so called AI winter of reduced interest and funding set in that nearly killed the field.

AI was reborn in the 1990s when it adopted a more applied, engineering-oriented paradigm.  The new AI paradigm enabled computers to acquire intelligent capabilities by ingesting and analyzing large amounts of data using powerful computers and sophisticated algorithms.  Instead of trying to explicitly program intelligence, this new approach was based on feeding lots and lots of data to the machine, and then letting the algorithms discover patterns and extract insights from all that data.

Such a data-driven, machine learning approach produced something akin to intelligence or knowledge.  Moreover, unlike the explicit programming-based approaches, the statistical-based ones scaled very nicely.  The more data you had, the more powerful the supercomputers, the more sophisticated the algorithms, the better the results.  Machine learning and related advances like deep learning, have played a major role in AI’s recent achievements. 

The Vital Role of Culture in Business

The January-February issue of the Harvard Business Review spotlights The Culture Factor, with five articles on the subject.  “Culture is the tacit social order of an organization: It shapes attitudes and behaviors in wide-ranging and durable ways,” notes the issue’s lead article.  “Cultural norms define what is encouraged, discouraged, accepted, or rejected within a group.  When properly aligned with personal values, drives, and needs, culture can unleash tremendous amounts of energy toward a shared purpose and foster an organization’s capacity to thrive.”

In Who Says Elephants Can't Dance?, - his excellent chronicle of the IBM transformation he led as Chairman and CEO from 1993 to 2002, - Lou Gerstner wrote: “I came to see in my time at IBM that culture isn’t just one aspect of the game - it is the game.  In the end, an organization is nothing more than the collective capacity of its people to create value.  Vision, strategy, marketing, financial management - any management system, in fact - can set you on the right path and can carry you for a while.  But no enterprise - whether in business, government, education, health care or any area of human endeavor - will succeed over the long haul if those elements aren't part of its DNA.” 

The Complex Relationship Between Science and the Public

More than ever, scientific and technological innovations touch every aspect of our lives and influence the choices we make in a wide variety of areas.  A 2015 study by the Pew Research Center revealed that most Americans have a positive view of science and of the accomplishments of scientists.  But, despite broadly similar views about the place of science in the country, there were large differences between the general public and scientist across a number of important issues, including genetically modified foods, vaccine safety and climate change.

Two years ago, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences launched The Public Face of Science, an initiative whose objective is to better understand the complex relationship between scientists and the public in America.  A few weeks ago, the Academy released Perceptions of Science in America, the first in a series of reports from the Public Face of Science initiative.  The report aims to analyze the public’s perception of scientists, explore how opinions vary among different populations, and shed light on how public opinions are shaped.  Its analysis is based on survey data from multiple sources, including the Pew Research Center, the National Science Board Science and Engineering Indicators, the National Opinion Research Center, Research!America and ScienceCounts.

What do we mean by science?  “The term science encompasses a range of disciplines in the physical, social, and life sciences, along with applied fields, such as engineering and medicine,” notes the report. “Science can be defined as ‘the use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural, as well as the knowledge generated through this process.’”  But, one must keep in mind that the word science is interpreted differently by different individuals, - e.g., medical treatments, technological advances, fundamental research.  “When interpreting the available survey data, it is important to consider the range of responses a question might prompt.”

Human Beings Need a Story

It wasn’t that long ago that we didn’t have much use for probabilities in our daily life, - outside of weather reports, election predictions, baseball and financial markets.  But that’s all changed with the growing datafication of the economy and society.  Probabilities have been playing an increasing role in our work and personal life given our newfound ability to quantify just about anything.  In all kinds of everyday situations, - from medical diagnoses to financial decisions, -  we now have to accept the fact that it’s impossible to predict what will actually happen.  Instead, we have to get used to living in a complex world of uncertainties and probabilities.  We have to learn how to deal with the very messy world of big data, and how to best apply our learning to make good decisions and predictions.

Physics went through such a transition about 100 years ago.  In the deterministic world of classical mechanics, there’s always a real truth.  The same objects, subject to the same forces, will always yield the same results.  Elegant mathematical models can be used to make perfect predictions within the accuracy of their human-scale measurements.  Early in the 19th century, French mathematician and scientist Pierre-Simon Laplace observed that if we knew the precise state of the universe as represented by the position and speed of every one of its particles, classical mechanics would enable us to calculate all past and future states of the universe.

But, this predictable world began to fall apart in the early 20th century.  19th century classical physics was replaced by a kind of 20th century magical mystery tour, ruled by the new principles of quantum mechanics and relativity.   Classical mechanics could not explain the counter-intuitive and seemingly absurd behavior of energy and matter at atomic and cosmological scales.

At these scales, the world is intrinsically unpredictable.  Instead of a deterministic world, we now have a world based on probabilities.  You cannot predict all the future states of an electron, for example, based on its present state.  You can map out its behavior, but only as probability distributions of all the possible states it could be at.  Moreover, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle tells you that it’s impossible to know the exact state of a particle.  You cannot simultaneously determine its exact position and velocity with any great degree of accuracy no matter how good your measurement tools are.

Will There Be Enough Work in the Future?

Will there be enough work in the future?  Opinions are fairly divided between those who believe that technology advances will reduce human jobs, and those who believe that technology advances will produce as many jobs as they displace.  It’s easier to predict the jobs that will be automated away by technology, but much more difficult to predict the new jobs that these same technologies will create.  In the end, we don’t really know.

In December of 2017, the McKinsey Global Institute published Jobs Lost, Jobs Gained: Workforce Transition in a Time of Automation, a report that directly addresses this question.  The McKinsey study examined in great detail the work that’s likely to be displaced by automation through 2030, as well as the jobs that are likely to be created over the same period.  It analyzed data from 46 countries comprising almost 90 percent of global GDP, focusing particularly on six countries: China, Germany, India, Japan, Mexico and the US.  For each of this six countries, the study modeled the potential for employment changes in more than 800 occupations based on different scenarios for the pace of automation adoption and for future labor demand.

The report’s overall conclusion is that a growing technology-based economy will create a significant number of new occupations, - as has been the case in the past, - which will more than offset declines in occupations displaced by automation.  However, “while there may be enough work to maintain full employment to 2030 under most scenarios, the transitions will be very challenging - matching or even exceeding the scale of shifts out of agriculture and manufacturing we have seen in the past.”

The Impact of Automation on Everyday Life

This past October, the Pew Research Center released Automation in Everyday Life, a report on what Americans think about advanced technologies like artificial intelligence and robotics, and the impact they expect them to have on their everyday lives.  The report is based on a national survey of 4,135 randomly selected American adults.  To help gauge their opinion on such complex topics, the survey questions were framed around four specific scenarios related to these advanced technologies: driverless cars, workplace automation, robot caregivers, and computer algorithms that evaluate and hire job applicants.

“Americans anticipate significant impacts from various automation technologies in the course of their lifetime,” noted the report.  “Although they expect certain positive outcomes from these developments, their attitudes more frequently reflect worry and concern over the implications of these technologies for society as a whole.”

Let me discuss some of the report’s key findings.

AI and the Productivity Paradox

AI is being successfully applied to tasks that not long ago were viewed as the exclusive domain of humans, matching or surpassing human level performance in more and more domains.  But, at the same time, productivity growth has significantly declined over the past decade, and income has continued to stagnate for the majority of Americans.  This puzzling contradiction is addressed in Artificial Intelligences and the Modern Productivity Paradox, a working paper recently published  by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).

The paper’s authors, - MIT professor Erik Brynjolfsson, MIT PhD candidate Daniel Rock, and University of Chicago professor Chad Syverson, - note that “aggregate labor productivity growth in the U.S. averaged only 1.3% per year from 2005 to 2016, less than half of the 2.8% annual growth rate sustained from 1995 to 2004…  What’s more, real median income has stagnated since the late 1990s and non-economic measures of well-being, like life expectancy, have fallen for some groups.”

This productivity puzzle isn’t confined to AI.  “Few topics in economics today in most large economies generate as much debate as the productivity puzzle,” said McKinsey in a March, 2017 report.  “In  the United States, productivity growth has declined sharply since 2004 yet digital technology has been widely apparent during this period…  The answer to this puzzle holds the key to future prosperity because now more than ever our economy depends on productivity improvements for long-term economic growth.  Economists have proposed competing explanations for declining productivity growth and so far have failed to reach a consensus.” 

The Rise of Winner-Take-All Urbanism

Earlier this year, Richard Florida published Why America’s Richest Cities Keep Getting Richer in The Atlantic.  Florida is a leading urban studies author and researcher, professor at the University of Toronto and Director of Cities at its Martin Prosperity Institute.

“The most important and innovative industries and the most talented, most ambitious, and wealthiest people are converging as never before in a relative handful of leading superstar cities that are knowledge and tech hubs,” wrote Florida.  “This small group of elite places forge ever forward, while most others struggle, stagnate, or fall behind.  This process is one I like to call winner-take-all urbanism.”

Winner-take-all urbanism is another manifestation of the winner-take-all economics of the past few decades, in which a relatively small number of players reap a very large share of the rewards, upending whole industries with their outsized returns.

AI and The Future of Work

Last month I attended AI and the Future of Work, a conference hosted by MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) and its Initiative on the Digital Economy (IDE).  The two-day agenda included over 20 keynotes and panels on AI-related topics, and around 60 speakers and panelists from academia and business.

New technologies have been replacing workers and transforming economies over the past two centuries.  But, over time, these same technologies led to the creation of whole new industries and new jobs.  While the technologies of the industrial economy helped to make up for our physical limitations, the technologies of the digital economy are now enhancing our cognitive capabilities.  They’re being increasingly applied to activities that not long ago were viewed as the exclusive domain of humans.  Will the AI revolution play out like past technology revolutions, - short term disruptions followed by long-term benefits, - or will this time be different?

Conference participants generally agreed that AI will have a major impact on jobs and the very nature of work.  But, for the most part, they viewed AI as mostly augmenting rather than replacing human capabilities, automating the more routine parts of a job and increasing the productivity and quality of workers, so they can focus on those aspect of the job that most require human attention.  Overall, a small percentage of jobs will be fully automated, while many more will be significantly transformed.

Conference participants also generally agreed that the more advanced AI-based transformations will not happen rapidly, but are likely decades away.  Much progress has been recently made in the ability to extract features from all the data we now have access to, as well as in machine learning algorithms that give computers the ability to learn by ingesting large amounts of data instead of being explicitly programmed.  While such statistical pattern recognition approaches can be applied to many tasks, they’re no substitute for model formation, the main approach used by humans, - from toddlers to physicists, - to understand how the world works.  We’re a long way from the development of AIs that truly learn and reason like people. 

Human-AI Decision Systems

I recently read The Human Strategy, a very interesting article on Human-AI decision systems by MIT Media Lab professor Sandy Pentland.  Pentland is the faculty director of MIT Connection Science, - with which I’m associated as a Fellow, - as well as director of the Human Dynamics Lab.  In 2014 he published Social Physics: How Social Networks Can Make Us Smarter.

“Perhaps the most critical function of any organization or society is its decision systems,” wrote Pentland.  “In modern societies, decision systems provide a leader the ability to make informed and timely decisions, supported by a complex enterprise of distributed information and communication systems that provide situational awareness.  Traditionally, decision systems have been confined to individual physical domains, such as logistics, physical plant, and human resources, and more recently virtual domains such as cyber, by both policy and technology, resulting in challenges with the integration of information across disparate domains.”

But, despite the increasingly complex decisions that organizations are called upon to make, decision-making remains human-intensive and anecdotal.  Few organizations have applied social network analysis to help them scale the size and expertise of the decision-making group.  Nor have they integrated the large amounts of data, analytical tools and powerful AI systems now at our disposal into their decision making systems. 

The MIT 2017 Inclusive Innovation Challenge

The MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy (IDE) was organized in 2013 by Erik Brynjolfsson and Andy McAfee to examine the impact of digital technologies on the world.  Understanding the future of work and jobs is one of the major areas of research being address by IDE.  What will the workforce of the future look like?, Where will jobs come from in the coming years, especially for the workers must impacted by automation?,  How can we accelerate the transformation of institutions, organizations, and human skills to keep up with the quickening pace of digital innovation?

To help come up with breakthrough, real-world answers to these tough questions, IDE launched the MIT Inclusive Innovation Challenge (IIC) last year.  The Challenge aims to identify, celebrate and award prizes to organizations around the world that are developing innovative approaches for improving the economic opportunities of middle- and base-level workers.

Now in its second year, the IIC introduced the winners of its 2017 competition at an event held on October 12 as part of Boston’s annual HUBweek.  Over $1 million was awarded to the winners in four categories: job creation and income growth, skills development and matching, technology access and financial inclusion.  The grand prize winner in each category received $150,000, while the three runners up in each category received $35,000.  The awards were funded with support from from Google.org, The Joyce Foundation, ISN and Joseph Eastin.

Jobs, Skills and Education

Earlier this year the communications firm Burson-Marsteller along with research firm PSB interviewed 1,500 Americans from all walks of life to shed light on their feelings about the current state of the economy and their expectations for the future.  “Americans are concerned about the present, but optimistic about the future,” was the survey’s overriding finding.  “However, opinions about the economy and the future are somewhat driven by education level.”

While only 33% said that the country is headed in the right direction, 67% said that they were somewhat or very optimistic about the future.  To a large extent, this optimism is based on the belief that their jobs are safe over the next 5 years, with 62% believing that they won’t be laid off and 60% that a machine couldn’t replace them.  In their opinion, the high cost of living, unemployment and jobs, the gap between rich and poor and taxes are the top issues facing the US economy, ahead by a fairly wide margin over corporate corruption, loss of manufacturing jobs, and falling or stagnant wages.

Their feelings about the future differed by educational level.  71% of Americans with a college education or more said that they have the right skills to succeed in the 21st century, compared to 42% of those with a high school education or less.  Only 14% of survey participants with a college education worried that their jobs could be automated within five years, compared with 30% of those with high school or less.  And 55% of Americans with college or more felt that technology will improve overall employment compared to 45% of those with high school or less.

Artificial Intelligence is Ready for Business; Are Businesses Ready for AI?

AI is now seemingly everywhere.  In the past few years, the necessary ingredients have come together to propel AI beyond the research labs into the marketplace: powerful, inexpensive computer technologies; advanced algorithms and models; and most important, oceans and oceans of data.

“Artificial intelligence is getting ready for business, but are businesses ready for AI?,” asks McKinsey in a recently published report - Artificial Intelligence: the Next Digital Frontier.  “AI adoption outside of the tech sector is at an early, often experimental stage,” is the report’s succinct answer.  “Few firms have deployed it at scale.”

The report is based on a survey of over 3,000 AI-aware C-level executives across 10 countries and 14 sectors.  Only 20 percent of respondents had adopted AI at scale in a core part of their business.  40 percent were partial adopters or experimenters, while another 40 percent were essentially contemplators.

AI encompasses a broad rage of technologies and application.  It’s often viewed as the leading edge of IT.  As soon as AI is successfully applied to a problem, the problem is no longer a part of AI.  The McKinsey report is focused on five technologies being increasingly deployed in business, that most everyone agrees are part of AI: robotics and autonomous vehicles, computer vision, language, virtual agents, and machine learning.

The Productivity Puzzle

Last year, Foreign Affairs focused its March/April issue on Surviving Slow Growth.  “The first decade of the twenty-first century was a time of unprecedented economic growth,” said the issue’s introductory article.  “The rich world got richer, and the developing world raced ahead: by 2007, the emerging-market growth rate had hit 8.7 percent… Then came the fall… growth has ground to a halt almost everywhere, and economists, investors, and ordinary citizens are starting to confront a grim new reality: the world is stuck in the slow lane and nobody seems to know what to do about it.”

Economic growth has two main components, productivity growth and the growth of the labor force.  Fewer workers is one of the key reasons for our stagnant economic growth.  The labor force is still growing in some developing countries like India, Nigeria and the Philippines, but it’s already shrinking in China, Japan and Germany.  In the US, the labor force is growing very slowly.

Over the coming decades, the labor force is expected to shrink in most parts of the world as fertility rates continue to decline.  The 2016 US fertility rate was the lowest it’s ever been.  Increasing productivity is thus more crucial than ever to promote economic growth.  But, in the US and other advanced economies, productivity growth has significantly slowed down over the past few decades.

Robocalypse Now? Technology, Productivity and Employment

Is the Robocalypse upon us?, asked MIT economist David Autor in his presentation at a recent Forum of European central bankers.  His presentation was based on a paper co-written with Utrecht University economist Anna Salomons.  “Is productivity growth inimical to employment?,” they asked in the paper’s abstract.  “Canonical economic theory says no, but much recent economic theory says maybe  - that is, rapid advances in machine capabilities may curtail aggregate labor demand as technology increasingly encroaches on human job tasks.”

Fears that machines will put humans out of work are not new.  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, “In the end, the fears of the Luddites that machinery would impoverish workers were not realized, and the main reason is well understood,” noted a 2015 article on the history of technological anxiety.

“The mechanization of the early 19th century could only replace a limited number of human activities.  At the same time, technological change increased the demand for other types of labor that were complementary to the capital goods embodied in the new technologies.  This increased demand for labor included such obvious jobs as mechanics to fix the new machines, but it extended to jobs for supervisors to oversee the new factory system and accountants to manage enterprises operating on an unprecedented scale.  More importantly, technological progress also took the form of product innovation, and thus created entirely new sectors for the economy, a development that was essentially missed in the discussions of economists of this time.”

Automation fears have understandbly accelerated in recent years, as our increasingly smart machines are now being applied to activities requiring intelligence and cognitive capabilities that not long ago were viewed as the exclusive domain of humans. “Previous technological innovation has always delivered more long-run employment, not less.  But things can change,” said a 2014 Economist article.  “Nowadays, the majority of economists confidently wave such worries away…  Yet some now fear that a new era of automation enabled by ever more powerful and capable computers could work out differently.”

The Growing Value of a Dual-Track Education

A few weeks ago I read a very interesting article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, - Why Colleges Need to Embrace the Apprenticeship.  The article raised a number of important questions on the future of college education, in particular, the value of an education that combines formal schooling with real-world practical experience, often referred to as a dual-track educational system.

Lots has been written about the critical importance of a good education in our knowledge-based digital economy.  At the same time, lots of questions are been raised about college and careers.  Is a four-year college education necessary to attain a good job and to have a successful long-term career?  Is it sufficient?  Are colleges properly preparing students for the job market?  Is there a role for liberal arts colleges?  Is college still worth it, given their increasing costs and the student loan debt crisis?  Should we continue to encourage young people to get a college degree? 

The Chronicle article addresses a number of these questions.  It writes that “Apprenticeships - long embraced as a work-force-training method in other countries - may now have an opening to become a far more common pathway to education and employment in the United States.  The enthusiasm for apprenticeships represents a kind of refutation of college education - a recognition that something about the path from college to career is not working for many people.”  The article explains why vocational apprenticeships have not fared as well in the US as they have in other advanced economies, and why apprenticeships, and similar dual-track systems, are increasingly important for all careers, including white-collar and professional careers requiring a bachelor’s or higher professional degree.

Become a More Productive, Empathetic, Creative Person With the Help of AI-Based Tools

Despite dramatic advances in technology, most of the world’s economies have been stuck in a long period of slow growth and slow productivity.  This is one of the most serious challenges in our 21st century economy.  Opinions abound, but there’s little consensus on its causes, and, nobody seems to know what to do about it, or how long it will likely last, - years or decades. 

In a recent article in the MIT Sloan Management Review, MIT Research Fellow Michael Schrage proposed a provocative and counterintuitive approach for enhancing innovation and productivity through man-machine collaborations.  Schrage’s approach has been more influenced by behavioral economics than by technology or algorithmic advances.  Instead of just asking how can people create more valuable innovation?, why not also ask How can innovation create more valuable people?  Don’t just leverage advanced technologies, - e.g., bots, software agents, and digital assistants, - to automate away a large portion of the workforce, but also focus on enhancing innovation and productivity by leveraging technology to create higher-performance versions of employees.

“Designing and training smarter algorithms may be cheaper and easier than retraining smart people,” wrote Schrage.  “Advocates of autonomous systems and machine learning typically innovate to minimize or marginalize human involvement in business processes.  For them, people are part of the problem, not the solution.  Organizations that take productivity seriously, however, understand that false dichotomies make poor investments: Smarter machines can - and should - be keys to unlocking greater returns from human capital.”

Peering into a Confusing, Paradoxical Future

Every four years since 1997, the US National Intelligence Council has been publishing a Global Trends report on the key trends that will shape the world over the following twenty years.  This unclassified strategic report is intended to provide the incoming administration and other senior leaders with a framework for long-range policy assessment.

Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds, released four years ago, identified four overarching megatrends that are expected to shape and transform the world by 2030: the empowerment of individuals - which will accelerate the reduction of poverty and raise the standard of living around the world; the diffusion of power among states, - which will shift power to networks and coalitions in a multipolar world; changing demographic patterns especially rapid aging, urbanization, and increased migration; and growing demands on resources such as food, water and energy, - which might lead to scarcities.

The latest Global Trends report, Paradox of Progress, was released earlier this year.  It begins by explaining its title. “We are living a paradox: The achievements of the industrial and information ages are shaping a world to come that is both more dangerous and richer with opportunity than ever before… The progress of the past decades is historic - connecting people, empowering individuals, groups, and states, and lifting a billion people out of poverty in the process.  But this same progress also spawned shocks like the Arab Spring, the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, and the global rise of populist, anti-establishment politics.  These shocks reveal how fragile the achievements have been, underscoring deep shifts in the global landscape that portend a dark and difficult near future.”

Not Your Grandfather’s Manufacturing

The February 23 issue of the NY Times Magazine was devoted to the future of work, and in particular, to what it called the new working class.  The Oxford Dictionary defines working class as “The social group consisting of people who are employed for wages, especially in manual or industrial work.”  The working class includes many traditional blue-collar occupations, - factory workers, truck drivers, electricians, plumbers, - but it also now includes an increasing number of white-collar and service jobs.

While the new working class comprises a variety of jobs, most discussions on the topic are generally centered on the deindustrialization of America over the past few decades, as well as on the ensuing decline in both the number and the wages of manufacturing jobs.  “Now when politicians invoke the working class, they are likely to gesture, anachronistically, to an abandoned factory,” notes the issue’s introductory article.

The ongoing transformation of manufacturing jobs was the subject of Learning to Love Our Robot Co-Workers by Kim Tingley.  Her article nicely explained the major changes taking place in US manufacturing, especially the appearance of a new generation of flexible, programmable, moderately priced robots that are designed to safely collaborate with humans, - each doing what they do best.

Robotics is an exciting, fast moving discipline, which is playing an increasingly important role in the future of manufacturing.  All computers are defined by what their brains, - that is, their hardware and software, - are capable of computing and controlling.  Robots are computers that have both a brain and a body.  A robot’s capabilities are defined by what its brains and body can jointly do.

The Simple, Economic Value of Artificial Intelligence

I recently attended a very interesting talk, - Exploring the Impact of Artificial Intelligence: Prediction versus Judgment, - by University of Toronto professor Avi Goldfarb.  The talk was based on recent research conducted with his UoT colleagues Ajay Agrawal  and Joshua Gans.  In addition to an in-depth paper aimed at a research audience, they’ve explained their work in two more general interest articles, one in the Harvard Business Review and the second in the MIT Sloan Management Review.

In their opinion, “the best way to assess the impact of radical technological change is to ask a fundamental question: How does the technology reduce costs?  Only then can we really figure out how things might change.”  For example, the semiconductor revolution can be viewed as being all about the dramatic reductions in the cost of arithmetic calculations.  Before the advent of computers, arithmetic was done by humans with the aid of various kinds of devices, from the abacus to mechanical and electronic calculators.

Then came digital computers, which are essentially powerful calculators whose cost of arithmetic operations has precipitously decreased over the past several decades thanks to Moore’s Law.  Over the years, we’ve learned to define all kinds of tasks in terms of such digital operations, e.g., inventory management, financial transactions, word processing, photography.  Similarly, the economic value of the Internet revolution can be described as reducing the cost of communications and of search, thus enabling us to easily find and access all kinds of information, - including documents, pictures, music and videos.

How does this framing now apply to our emerging AI revolution?  After decades of promise and hype, AI seems to have finally arrived, - driven by the explosive growth of big data,  inexpensive computing power and storage, and advanced algorithms like machine learning that enable us to analyze and extract insights from all that data.  Agrawal, Fans and Goldfarb provide an elegant answer to this question in their HBR article.  “Machine intelligence is, in its essence, a prediction technology, so the economic shift will center around a drop in the cost of prediction.”

Technology, Capitalism and “The American Way of Life”

Much has been written about our digital technology revolution and its impact on economies, societies and individuals.  But few have brought the kind of historical perspective to the subject that helps us better understand our turbulent times like scholar and consultant Carlota Perez in her 2002 book Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital:  The Dynamics of Bubbles and Golden Ages and related publications.

According to Perez, over the past few centuries, we’ve had a technology revolution every 40 to 60 years, starting with the Industrial Revolution in 1771, which was characterized by the emergence of machines, factories and canals.  This was followed by the age of steam, coal, iron and railways starting in 1829; steel, electricity and heavy engineering in 1875; and oil, autos and mass production in 1908.  Our present age of information and communication technologies (ICT), whose starting point she pegs at 1971, is the fifth such major revolution.

Technology revolutions have two distinct periods, each lasting 20 to 30 years.  The installation period is the time of creative destruction, when new technologies emerge from the lab into the marketplace, entrepreneurs start many new businesses based on these new technologies, VCs encourage experimentation with new business models, and the new ventures attract considerable investments and financial speculation.  Inevitably, this all leads to bubbles and crashes like the recent dot-com and subprime mortgage bubbles.

After the crash, comes the deployment period, a time of institutional recomposition.  The now well accepted technologies become the norm.  New paradigms emerge for guiding innovation and for determining winners and losers in the marketplace.  Over time, these new paradigms significantly transform the economy and everything around it, as well as re-shaping social behavior and the institutions of society.

Last year Perez published Capitalism, Technology and a Green Global Golden Age: The Role of History in Helping to Shape the Future.  In this recent article, she argued that we’re going through a crucial moment in history similar to the 1930s, which requires the kind of creative thinking and bold measures for which we justifiably celebrate statesmen like Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John Maynard Keynes.  Let me summarize her argument.

The State of American Jobs

Last year, the Pew Research Center, - in association with the Markle Foundation, - conducted a survey about the state of American jobs to shed light on how people think about work and about the skills and training needed to get ahead in our fast changing digital economy.  The survey was based on landline and mobile telephone interviews with a national sample of over 5000 adults.  Their analysis and conclusions were published last October in a highly detailed 94 page report, - The State of American Jobs.

“Tectonic changes are reshaping U.S. workplaces as the economy moves deeper into the knowledge-focused age,” said the report in its opening paragraph.  “These changes are affecting the very nature of jobs by rewarding social, communications and analytical skills.  They are prodding many workers to think about lifetime commitments to retraining and upgrading their skills.  And they may be prompting a society-wide reckoning about where those constantly evolving skills should be learned - and what the role of colleges should be.”

Let me summarize some of the report’s key findings.

Automation and Employment in the 21st Century

Ever since the advent of industrialization over 200 years ago, there’ve been periodic fears about the impact of technology-based automation on jobs.  In the 1810s, for example, the so-called Luddites smashed the new machines that were threatening their textile jobs.  But each time those fears arose in the past, technology advances ended up creating more jobs than they destroyed.

Automation anxieties have understandably accelerated in recent years, as AI-related innovations, including robots and smart machines of all kinds, are now being applied to activities requiring intelligence and cognitive capabilities that not long ago were viewed as the exclusive domain of humans.  The concerns surrounding AI’s long term impact on jobs may well be in a class by themselves.

There’s a broad consensus that AI will have a major impact on jobs and the very nature of work, but it’s much less clear what that impact will be.  Will AI play out like past technology innovations, - highly disruptive in the near term, but ultimately leading to the creation of new jobs, whole new industries, and a rising standard of living?  Or will this time be different, as AI-based innovations end up replacing a large portion of the workforce, - leading to mass unemployment, economic dislocations and social unrest?

The Fourth Industrial Revolution - Risks and Benefits

The Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) was the central theme of the 2016 World Economic Forum (WEF) that took place a year ago in Davos, Switzerland.  It continued to play a prominent role in the recently concluded 2017 annual meeting.   Coming to grips with the impact of the fourth industrial revolution was among the top leadership priorities discussed at this year’s meeting.

Over the past year, Klaus Schwab, - WEF founder and executive chairman, - has described his vision for the fourth industrial revolution in a number of articles as well as a book on the subject.  Dr. Schwab positions the 4IR within the historical context of three previous industrial revolutions.  The First, - starting in the last third of the 18th century, - introduced new tools and manufacturing processes based on steam and water power.  The Second, - a century later, - saw the advent of steel, oil, electricity, mass production and associated inventions including the telephone, light bulbs phonographs and cars.  The Third, - starting in the middle of the last century, - has brought us digital technologies, computers, the IT industry, and the automation of processes in just about all industries.

The 4IR builds on our ongoing digital revolution.  It “entails nothing less than a transformation of humankind,” wrote Dr. Schwab in his book’s introduction  “We are at the beginning of a revolution that is fundamentally changing the way we live, work, and relate to one another.  In its scale, scope and complexity, what I consider to be the fourth industrial revolution is unlike anything humankind has experienced before…”

“Consider the unlimited possibilities of having billions of people connected by mobile devices, giving rise to unprecedented processing power, storage capabilities and knowledge access.  Or think about the staggering confluence of emerging technology breakthroughs, covering wide-ranging fields such as artificial intelligence (AI), robotics, the internet of things (IoT), autonomous vehicles, 3D printing, nanotechnology, biotechnology, materials science, energy storage and quantum computing, to name a few.  Many of these innovations are in their infancy, but they are already reaching an inflection point in their development as they build on and amplify each other in a fusion of technologies across the physical, digital and biological worlds.”

The Emerging, Unpredictable Age of AI

In a 1930 essay, Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren, English economist John Maynard Keynes wrote about the onset of “a new disease” which he called technological unemployment, that is “unemployment due to our discovery of means of economising the use of labour outrunning the pace at which we can find new uses for labour.”

“But this is only a temporary phase of maladjustment,” he added.  “I would predict that the standard of life in progressive countries one hundred years hence will be between four and eight times as high as it is.”  Keynes believed that technological progress would lead us to a brighter future.  By 2030, people would likely work no more than 15 hours a week, and their biggest problem would be how to use their leisure and freedom from economic cares.

I was reminded of Keynes’ predictions while reading a number of recent articles on our emerging age of AI.  After decades of unfulfilled promises and hype, AI seems to be reaching a tipping point.  The necessary ingredients are finally coming together: lots and lots of data, with the volume of data pouring in expected to double every three years or so; advanced machine learning algorithms that extract insights and learn from all that data; drastically lowered technology costs for collecting, storing and analyzing these oceans of information; and access to an increasing variety of data-driven, cloud-based AI applications.

A small, but prominent group of technologists and scientists have warned that at some future time, a superintelligent AI might pose an existential threat to humanity.  But while dismissing such dire concerns, most experts worry that the real threat is that AI advances could lead to widespread economic dislocation and social unrest.  “Contrary to the more fantastic predictions for AI in the popular press, the Study Panel found no cause for concern that AI is an imminent threat to humankind…” was the conclusion of a recent study by AI experts.  “At the same time, many of these developments will spur disruptions in how human labor is augmented or replaced by AI, creating new challenges for the economy and society more broadly.”

AI and Public Policy

Two years ago, Stanford University launched the One Hundred Year Study of AI (AI100), “to study and anticipate how the effects of artificial intelligence will ripple through every aspect of how people work, live and play.”  One of its key missions is to convene a Study Panel of experts every five years to assess the then current state of the field, as well as to explore both the technical advances and societal challenges over the next 10 to 15 years. 

The first such Study Panel recently published Artificial Intelligence and Life in 2030, a report that examined the likely impact of AI on a typical North American city by the year 2030.  The report is organized into three main sections: Section I described the key research trends influencing AI’s future; Section II examined the key economic sectors that are most likely to be impacted by AI;  and Section III looked into issues surrounding AI and public policy.  Over the past several weeks I’ve discussed the first and second sections.  I now would like to turn my attention to Section III: Prospects and Recommendations for AI Public Policy.

“Throughout history, humans have both shaped and adapted to new technologies.  This report anticipates that advances in AI technologies will be developed and fielded gradually - not in sudden, unexpected jumps in the techniques themselves - and will build on what exists today, making this adaptation easier… The measure of success for AI applications is the value they create for human lives.  Going forward, the ease with which people use and adapt to AI applications will likewise largely determine their success.”

The report then adds some very important warnings.  “Conversely, since AI applications are susceptible to errors and failures, a mark of their success will be how users perceive and tolerate their shortcomings.  As AI becomes increasingly embedded in daily lives and used for more critical tasks, system mistakes may lead to backlash from users and negatively affect their trust.”

AI, Automation and the US Economy

On December 20, the White House released Artificial Intelligence, Automation, and the Economy, a new report that investigates how AI will likely transform job markets over time, and recommends policy responses to address AI’s impact on the US economy.  This report is further evidence that AI is now reaching the kind of market impact that requires well thought out strategies by both business and government.

AI research has been around since the early days of IT, - having gone through ups and downs over the past several decades.  But it’s recent advances based on machine learning and related data-driven technologies are still relatively new, making it hard to predict where AI will be heading over time.

Harder still is predicting AI’s longer term economic and societal impact.  Think of anticipating the impact of the emerging Internet revolution back in the mid 1990s, before the advent of e-commerce and social media, let alone smartphones, IoT and cloud computing in the 2000s.  That’s roughly where we are with AI today.

But, there’s one big difference.  The Internet generated a fair degree of hype, especially in the dot-com era of the late 1990s, but the overriding feelings were ones of hope and excitement.  Not so with AI.  Along with admiration for its considerable accomplishments, - from assisting in the treatment of rare forms of cancer to self-driving cars, - there are serious fears that AI advances will lead to massive job losses, economic dislocations and social unrest.

The 2016 MIT Inclusive Innovation Awards

Several months ago, MIT’s Initiative on the Digital Economy launched its first annual Inclusive Innovation Competition (IIC).  MIT is one of the world’s top research universities, renowned as well for its entrepreneurial culture.  But the objectives of the IIC are quite different and unique.  Instead of competing on creating the most advanced technologies or compelling startups, the IIC is focused on innovations aimed at improving the economic opportunities of middle- and low-income earners around the world.

Applicants competed for $1 million in prizes to be awarded in four main categories: Skills, - how employees were re-skilled for new types of jobs; Matching, - how qualified people were connected to new types of jobs; Humans + Machines, - how technology is used to augment human labor; and New Models, - how new business models revolutionize labor markets and job opportunities.  In each of these categories, the grand prize winner was awarded $125,000, while each of the four runner-ups received $25,000.  In addition, four additional $25,000 Judges Choice Awards were given to organizations deemed by the judges to be uniquely inventive.

I’m a Fellow of the Initiative on the Digital Economy, and served as one of the judges in the competition.  243 applications were received from around the world, from which we selected 24 finalists.  I personally reviewed around 20 applications, and was really impressed not only by their innovative ideas, but also by their courage and determination as they addresed some of society’s toughest problems.

The Evolution of the Firm

A few weeks ago I discussed The Rise of the Global Superstar Company based on a recent special report on the subject by The Economist.  The report noted that the decade-long trend toward increasingly concentrated global firms is somewhat surprising. 

“The rise of the giants is a reversal of recent history…  In the 1980s and 1990s management gurus pointed to the demise of size as big companies seemed to be giving way to a much more entrepreneurial economy.  Giants such as AT&T were broken up and state-owned firms were privatised.  High-tech companies emerged from nowhere.  Peter Drucker, a veteran management thinker, announced that ‘the Fortune 500 [list of the biggest American companies] is over.’ That chimed with the ideas of Ronald Coase, an academic who had argued in ‘The Nature of the Firm’ (1937) that companies make sense only when they can provide the services concerned more cheaply than the market can.”

Professor Coase’s views on the firm changed quite a bit over the years.  In 1937 he published The Nature of the Firm, a seminal article which along with other major contributions earned him the 1991 Nobel Prize in economics.  In the article, Professor Coase provided a simple answer to the question: Why do firms exist?  He explained that, in principle, a firm should be able to find the cheapest, most productive goods and services by contracting them out in an efficient, open marketplace.  However, markets are not perfectly fluid.  Transaction costs are incurred in obtaining goods and services outside the firm, such as searching for the right people, negotiating a contract, coordinating the work, managing intellectual property and so on.  Thus, firms came into being to make it easier and less costly to get work done.

Towards a Trusted Framework for Identity and Data Sharing

I recently participated in a Treasury Identity Forum organized by the US Treasury Department in Washington, DC.  The Forum focused “on the critical role of legal identity for financial inclusion, economic development, and anti-money laundering/counter financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) safeguards, and the development of new technology identification/authentication solutions to help achieve these goals.”  It brought together stakeholders from governments, financial service companies, FinTech startups and technologists to better understand how emerging technologies and legal frameworks can help us develop the required digital identity systems.

I was a member of a panel on how government, business and research communities can collaborate in developing workable identity solutions.  Let me summarize the points I made in my introductory remarks.

From time immemorial, our identity systems have been based on face-to-face interactions and on physical documents and processes.  But, the transition to a digital economy requires radically different identity systems.  As the economy and society move toward a world where interactions are primarily governed by digital data and transactions, our existing methods of managing identity and data security are proving inadequate.  Large-scale fraud, identity theft and data breaches are becoming common, and a large fraction of the world’s population lacks the credentials needed to be part of the digital economy.

Is Design Thinking the “New Liberal Arts”?

Design thinking has become an increasingly popular topic of discussion over the past decade.  It was featured in the September, 2015 issue of the Harvard Business Review with several articles on the subject.  Design is no longer just for physical objects, e.g. cars, bridges, shoes, jewelry, smartphones.  Design thinking is now being applied to abstract entities, - e.g. systems, services, information and organizations, - as well as to devise strategies, manage change and solve complex problems.

The application of design thinking beyond products isn’t new.  Nobel laureate Herbert Simon discussed the concept in his 1969 classic The Sciences of the Artificial.  IDEO, a firm best known for pioneering this expanded view of design, traces its roots back to 1978.  The School of Design in London’s Royal College of Art has long been expanding the boundaries of industrial design.  Stanford’s Institute of Design, - better known as the d.school, - was launched in 2004 as a graduate program that integrates business, the social sciences, the humanities and other disciplines into more traditional engineering and product design.

The d.school’s website nicely explains its design-thinking point of view:  “Students and faculty in engineering, medicine, business, law, the humanities, sciences, and education find their way here to take on the world’s messy problems together.  Human values are at the heart of our collaborative approach… Along the way, our students develop a process for producing creative solutions to even the most complex challenges they tackle…  Our deliberate mash-up of industry, academia and the big world beyond campus is a key to our continuing evolution.”

STEM Literacy and Jobs

In the early days of the Industrial Revolution, it’s been estimated that around 12% of the world's population was literate. Literacy rates increased throughout the 19th century, as people started moving from the countryside to towns and cities for the job opportunities opening up in the newly industrialized societies.  Many of these new jobs, especially the higher paying ones, required the ability to read and write.  With the rise of universal education in almost all countries around the world, literacy rates steadily increased in the 20th century, - from roughly 20% in 1900 to around 80% in 2000.  In the 21st century, we not only have the challenge of eliminating illiteracy altogether, but we must now also focus on STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) literacy.

Most everyone would agree that there is a big difference between being proficient at reading and writing and being a playwright, a literary critic, a book editor or a journalist.  The skills requirement are radically different.  But, students don’t often appreciate the difference between achieving a modicum of STEM literacy and pursuing a STEM profession.  Many avoid taking STEM courses because they have no intention of majoring in a STEM discipline.  While everyone agrees that basic literacy is critical for just about any job, we don’t quite have the same level of appreciation that being STEM literate is increasingly important to qualify for a wide variety of jobs in our information-based knowledge economy.

Over the past few years, an increasing number of studies have argued that a good education for students majoring in STEM disciplines should include the so-called softer competencies more associated with the liberal arts in addition to harder, more technical skills.  For example, a 2006 report by the National Academy of Engineering on the need to reforming engineering education noted that “New graduates were technically well prepared but lacked the professional skills for success in a competitive, innovative, global marketplace.  Employers complained that new hires had poor communication and teamwork skills and did not appreciate the social and nontechnical influences on engineering solutions and quality processes.”

Is There a STEM Crisis or a STEM Surplus?

Is the US facing a critical shortage of STEM skills?  Do we have enough STEM workers to meet the demands of the labor market?  Are enough young people choosing STEM careers so we can meet future demands?

Such serious concerns have been expressed in a number of national studies over the past two decades.  In 2005, for example, the National Innovation Initiative listed “Build the Base of Scientists and Engineers” as one of its top recommendations, noting that “unless the United States takes swift action, the demand for S&E talent will far outstrip supply.  The number of jobs requiring technical training is growing at five times the rate of other occupations.”

Two years later, a major National Academies study, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, called for increasing America’s STEM talent pool by providing 25,000 new 4-year competitive undergraduate scholarships to US citizens enrolled in the physical sciences, the life sciences, engineering and math; and by funding 5,000 new graduate fellowships each year for US citizens pursuing graduate studies in areas of national need.

And in 2012, a report by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology wrote: “Economic projections point to a need for approximately 1 million more STEM professionals than the U.S. will produce at the current rate over the next decade if the country is to retain its historical preeminence in science and technology.  To meet this goal, the United States will need to increase the number of students who receive undergraduate STEM degrees by about 34% annually over current rates.”

The Continuing Evolution of Service Science

Service Science emerged in the mid-2000s as an academic discipline aimed at applying technology and science to the service sector, - by far the largest sector of the US economy and of most economies around the world.  Since its inception, IBM has played a major role in the continuing evolution of service science, coining the term Service Science, Management and Engineering (SSME) to highlight the interdisciplinary nature of this emerging discipline.  I was personally involved in these efforts during my last few years at IBM.  Subsequently, it’s continued to be one of the main subjects I’ve talked about in seminars and written about in this blog.

A few weeks ago I had an interesting conversation on the the state of service science with analysts from an IT research organization who were preparing a report on the subject for their clients.  Our discussion led me to reflect on the evolution of service science over the past several years.  I think that we are hearing a bit less about it these days.  But is that because we’ve become tired of the subject and moved on, or because the application of science and technology to services is now so well accepted that it’s no longer a topic of debate?  I very much think it’s the latter.

The Smart London Plan

Urbanization is one of the major forces shaping the 21st century - right up there with the digital technology revolution and globalization.  Over half of the world’s population lives in urban areas, and as the 2014 UN World Urbanization Prospect noted: “The continuing urbanization and overall growth of the world’s population is projected to add 2.5 billion people to the urban population by 2050,” with the proportion of the population living in urban areas increasing to 66 percent by 2050.

Just about every study that’s benchmarked the competitiveness of major urban areas ranks London, - along with New York, - as the world’s two top cities.  But despite, - or perhaps because of, - their leadership positions, both cities face major challenges as they deal with economic growth and a growing population.

London has been much in the news lately.  First came the election of Sadik Khan last May, - the first Muslim mayor not only of London but of a major Western capital, followed by the recent Brexit referendum, where London voted to Remain in the EU by an overwhelming 60% of its vote while the UK as a whole voted 52% to Leave.

At this point, it’s very hard to predict where Brexit is heading over the next few months, let alone what it’s long term consequences might be.  But, given its many strengths I have little doubt that London will remain among the world’s very top cities.  So, let me put Brexit aside for the moment and discuss instead what London has been doing to address its major population and economic challenges.

Learning to Work with Our Increasingly Smart Machines

A few weeks ago I attended the annual conference of MIT’s Initiative on the Digital Economy.  The day-long conference featured a number of interesting talks on the impact of digital technologies on business, the economy and society.  Tom Davenport, - Babson College professor and IDE Fellow, - gave one such talk on technology and jobs, based on his recently published book Only Humans Need Apply: Winners and Losers in the Age of Smart Machines, co-authored with HBR editor Julia Kirby.

Davenport started his talk by noting that over the past two centuries we’ve seen three distinct stages of automation, based on the kinds of jobs that were replaced by machines.  The machines of the first automation era “relieved humans of work that was manually exhausting,” making up for our physical limitations, - steam engines and electric motors enhanced our physical power while railroads, cars and airplanes helped us go faster and farther.

Next came the automation of jobs involving routine tasks that could be well described by a set of rules and were thus prime candidates for IT substitution.  “Era Two automation doesn’t only affect office workers.  It washes across the entire services-based economy that arose after massive productivity gains wiped out jobs in agriculture, then manufacturing.”  It threatened many transactional service jobs that “are so routinized that they are simple to translate into code,” from bank tellers to airline reservations clerks.

We’ve now entered the third era of automation.  Our increasingly smart machines are “now breathing down our necks…  This time the potential victims are not tellers and tollbooth collectors, much less farmers and factory workers, but rather all those knowledge workers who assumed they were immune from job displacement by machines,…” including, - as Davenport and Kirby poignantly remind us, - “People like the writers and readers of this book.”

The Public Face of Science

Last month, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences launched a three year initiative to address the complex relationship between scientists and the public.  The Public Face of Science project will explore the interactions of the general public with science, technology, medicine and related areas.

Throughout the 20th century, polls have consistently indicated strong public support for science and technology, especially during the Cold War decades following World War 2.  But recent polling data, - and in particular, a recent study conducted by the Pew Research Center, -  reveals a more complex relationship between the public and science.  While scientific achievements are still recognized and valued, there is a large opinion gap between the general public and scientists on a number of scientific issues.

The Pew findings were released in a January, 2015 report based on two surveys of science-related issues conducted in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).  The first survey is based on a representative sample of 2,002 general public adults and was conducted by landline and mobile phones.  The second survey was conducted online, and is based on a representative sample of 3,748 US-based scientists who are members of AAAS.