The augmented worker

A <a href="https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---inst/documents/publication/wcms_890761.pdf" rel="noopener ugc nofollow" target="_blank">recent UN report</a> concludes that <a href="https://www.reuters.com/technology/ai-unlikely-destroy-most-jobs-clerical-workers-risk-ilo-says-2023-08-21/" rel="noopener ugc nofollow" target="_blank">while algorithms and artificial intelligence are unlikely to destroy the vast majority of jobs, many administrative posts are at risk in the short term</a>. The report describes how the most likely scenario, at least in the short term, is that while algorithms will not be able to take over every task involved in much office work, they will be able to automate a significant amount, which could free up the people in those jobs to perform other tasks. This is clear example of the result of what I call <a href="https://medium.com/enrique-dans/the-fallacy-of-static-analysis-and-why-so-many-arguments-against-decarbonization-are-based-on-it-78c276abac5c?sk=4e9c2b4ab77b725fd6ee024d857565b0" rel="noopener">static analysis</a>: reaching conclusions without taking into account a fast-changing technological context. In other words, most people who carry out this kind of research only look at the facts reflected in it, when reality is always more complex, and a longitudinal study of the effects of technology throughout history is always likely to provide infinitely richer conclusions. Let’s put the conclusions of the report into a business context: employers are not going to allow their staff to sit back and put their feet up because they now have time-saving algorithms at their disposal. They could stop using these algorithms, but that would make them less competitive. First conclusion: technology is not optional. <a href="https://medium.com/enrique-dans/the-augmented-worker-681a7ae48b7e">Visit Now</a>