Posted on 08/29/2023 3:55:44 PM PDT by Olog-hai
The latest wave of generative AI is more likely to augment jobs than destroy them, according to a new study by the International Labor Organization (ILO).
Most jobs will only be partially exposed to the automation generated by technologies such as ChatGPT, so it is more likely that they will be complemented by automation — rather than replaced entirely.
The impact of these technologies will be greater on the quality rather than on the quantity of jobs, according to the global study.
In addition, the effects will be uneven by gender, job category and country income-level. “Any form of technological transition would have a strongly gendered effect, with a badly managed process disproportionately harming women,” reads the report.
About four percent of global female employment is subject to potential automation through generative AI technologies, compared to only 1.4 percent of male employment. The trend is even more pronounced in high-income countries. This is because there are many more office jobs in these countries, which have become a source of employment for women as countries have experienced greater economic development.
The ILO estimates that it is clerical work that will be most exposed to technologies such as ChatGPT. About a quarter of clerical jobs will be highly exposed to this new wave of technology, while only a small percentage of managerial, professional and technical jobs will be highly exposed. As a result, many administrative jobs may never be created in these developing countries.
The ILO warns of the danger: “Concentrated job losses in female-dominated occupations could threaten advances made in the past decades in increasing women’s participation in the labor market.”
Moreover, for these low-income countries, the potential benefits of generative AI are limited by the lack of adequate structures to enable its use, with widespread internet access and reliable electricity still pending. As a result, only 0.4 percent of total employment in these low-income countries will be at risk of automation (equivalent to around one million jobs), compared with 5.5 percent in high-income countries (equivalent to around 30 million jobs).
Regardless of their varying degrees of impact, generative AI is neither good nor bad in and of itself, the ILO report says. Its impact will depend on how its expansion is managed. While it is true that the automation of certain tasks will free up a certain amount of time that can be used to do more work, as the ILO study points out, attention also needs to be paid to how it is used. Poor implementation can also reduce workers’ autonomy or increase their work intensity, for example when algorithmic management tools are used and there is no room for feedback or discussion with management.
So far, discussions on AI regulation have not addressed the impact of these technologies on working conditions. The EU’s own AI Act has focused on market rather than labour implications, and although it will not be introduced during this mandate, employment commissioner Nicholas Schmit has stressed that they are attaching “high importance” to the issue of AI in the world of work.
“Without proper policies in place, there is a risk that only some of the well-positioned countries and market participants will be able to harness the benefits of the transition, while the costs to affected workers could be brutal,” concludes the report.
Women, minorities hardest hit.
A mere algorithm, it can be fixed.
Damn cotton gin.
How many make jobs did women destroy?
A true assessment of the last 60 years shows how bad the Dems screwed up our society. The family was destroyed…. most of our societal ills are a result of this.
That is, if AI can even define “female” to everyone’s satisfaction.
I see traditional marriage making a comeback.
*male
Sadly, that’s correct.
Abolition of the family!Stuff like that is what happens when people take the lies of the Communist Manifesto literally. As you can see, every claim made by the commies is a total lie.
Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the communists.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital; on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social. And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention, direct or indirect, of society by means of schools et cetera?
The communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.
The bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting by the action of modern industry; all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor. …
I sure hope so.
We should not let them define things.
“Artificial Intelligence” is too innocuous of a name.
It is “Automated Autocracy,” and that’s what we should always call it.
Women and minorities hardest hit.
They have to eat.
How did the ILO define the term “woman?”
Kinda hard to lay bricks with AI.
Note how they give no examples. They don’t have any.
So a computer program, even an advanced one, is going to take the place of WHAT, exactly? They say clerical. Okay, what? Physically filing papers? No, not without wheels and a form of dexterous mobility. Transcribing speech to text? Okay, I could see that, but it already exists, and it hardly
needs “AI” to do that.
Now a robot, or really an automated machine, could cook a burger, and might be able to create the entire Big Mac or Whooper, but that’s not clerical work.
None of anything a machine could do, or an automate machine, needs AI to do it.
By AI they mean some master brain, smarter than a man. We don’t have that. It is just science fiction.
I am a computer scientist by degree, and systems networking and teaching guy by profession, but AI is the biggest nothing there story this year.
I’m sure they had gold bricks in mind.
Hahahahaha great post!
classic
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.