I see this sentiment unquestioningly expressed in nearly every breathless AI hype piece, across every domain:

AI would transform their jobs, freeing them up from mundane tasks to focus on more meaningful ones"

― Fast Company, Will AI make CEOs obsolete?

I doubt this. The ascent of asynchronous electronic communication over the past 30 years hasn’t liberated people from time-consuming synchronous meetings. If anything, the reduction in async communication costs has increased each role’s scope and tempo.

Without adjusting communication patterns, increased scope at higher tempo is more likely to produce more meetings to ensure alignment or course correct.

Additionally, to the extent that the prevailing work metaphor is mechanistic/Taylorisic, whatever new capacity is freed by adopting AI will be quickly backfilled by a new set of rote work. Innovation, relationship building, and experimentation are inherently unpredictable. Many organizations prioritize and reward the illusion of control and predictability over existential uncertainty and potential upside.

There’s a reason it’s “Team Hackathon Day” and not “Business Unit Experimentation Year”.

AI adoption is a self-fulfilling prophecy that’s more likely to raise the expectations for individuals, as existing tasks will be perceived to be less costly in terms of time or skill. What is harder to quantify is the cost of maintaining quality levels. Fewer people will be expected to do more, more quickly, while some of their role has shifted from creator to editor/auditor.

The AI as Liberator is a seductive theme. However, I think it’s only likely to make good on this lofty goal if the social environment changes accordingly. Technology is socially constructed and those social forces can be disrupted without technological adoption.

References

Attributions

Photo by Shuvra Podder on Unsplash