I always appreciate a good refresher on these basic economics, because they're so ethically counterintuitive, even though they make perfect sense from a mathematical standpoint. Which is kind of the pinch we're in, isn't it?
And then there's what whole concept of "emotional labor." Somehow that's percolating in my mind as I read this...
Which is to say, I think you're spot on to be talking about what *matters* at this moment in time. Do you get the sense that maybe AI might force a huge reckoning in that area, even apart from the direct questions about AI itself?
This is very much what my writing focuses on. What do we want? What do we value? I think AI is a catalyst or some extra fuel on the fire but you’re 100% correct that it is really about way more than AI.
Great read, Rachel! I've been thinking and writing about this a lot lately. Two thoughts:
1. I've dubbed the next decade the "involuntary transformation" decade because like it or not, AI and demographic shifts is going to reshape the human experience profoundly. The nature of work, meaning and humanity itself will be a vital question in this era.
2. I'm of the view that corporations have struggled to really measure productivity or value contributed at an individual level for quite some time. Performance reviews are largely based on vibes, judgement and likability. i.e. things that are hard to automate anyway.
So perhaps this is an unexpectedly positive thing, the things getting automated are the things that are quantifiable. In reality, most of human relationships and life itself has never relied on that anyway. You don't become friends with someone just because you can quantify your positive feelings towards them. Just like, you don't hire someone purely because they score well on a psychometric test.
True. But you only look to hire someone in the first place if you believe they’d add a specific, calculated, value or profit margin to the organisation.
I will feel more optimistic about it if and when we see the math on a clear economic driver for companies to maintain their human employees.
AI tends to replace the work we have already learned how to measure.
The difficult part is what remains: judgment, context, and trade-offs. Those are harder to put into a dashboard, but they are often where the real value sits.
I always appreciate a good refresher on these basic economics, because they're so ethically counterintuitive, even though they make perfect sense from a mathematical standpoint. Which is kind of the pinch we're in, isn't it?
And then there's what whole concept of "emotional labor." Somehow that's percolating in my mind as I read this...
Which is to say, I think you're spot on to be talking about what *matters* at this moment in time. Do you get the sense that maybe AI might force a huge reckoning in that area, even apart from the direct questions about AI itself?
I look forward to reading more of your work!
This is very much what my writing focuses on. What do we want? What do we value? I think AI is a catalyst or some extra fuel on the fire but you’re 100% correct that it is really about way more than AI.
💯
David Graeber 👍🔥
Great read, Rachel! I've been thinking and writing about this a lot lately. Two thoughts:
1. I've dubbed the next decade the "involuntary transformation" decade because like it or not, AI and demographic shifts is going to reshape the human experience profoundly. The nature of work, meaning and humanity itself will be a vital question in this era.
2. I'm of the view that corporations have struggled to really measure productivity or value contributed at an individual level for quite some time. Performance reviews are largely based on vibes, judgement and likability. i.e. things that are hard to automate anyway.
So perhaps this is an unexpectedly positive thing, the things getting automated are the things that are quantifiable. In reality, most of human relationships and life itself has never relied on that anyway. You don't become friends with someone just because you can quantify your positive feelings towards them. Just like, you don't hire someone purely because they score well on a psychometric test.
True. But you only look to hire someone in the first place if you believe they’d add a specific, calculated, value or profit margin to the organisation.
I will feel more optimistic about it if and when we see the math on a clear economic driver for companies to maintain their human employees.
AI tends to replace the work we have already learned how to measure.
The difficult part is what remains: judgment, context, and trade-offs. Those are harder to put into a dashboard, but they are often where the real value sits.
This is technically true (at least for now) but judgement is subjective and its quality currently unmeasured.