Recent research suggests the post-AI job scene will be less dire than many have envisaged but training and preparation are key
This ILO global report may have countered the more apocalyptic claims about jobs losses, but it was not meant as a calming voice. Rather it was a call for policy makers and employers to wake up and address the generative AI revolution. To set policies to facilitate a smooth transition to the AI era, and to build a workforce ready to take full advantage of the technological changes that are upon us.
The outcomes of the AI technological transition, including employment prospects, are not pre-determined. “It is humans that are behind the decision to incorporate such technologies and it is humans that need to guide the transition process,” states the ILO. Delaying or failing to manage the process well could lead to some of the dire consequence predicted by doomsters, but existential job losses are not inevitable.
Against expectations, rather than finding evidence for alarming estimates of net job losses, global estimates from the ILO study point to a future in which work is transformed, but jobs are still very much in existence. The research focused on the potential of task automation as of today—the current job market and the current state of AI technology. It did not speculate on how the technology might develop—which leaves some uncertainty. But nor did it predict the numbers of new jobs that might emerge.
Echoing these findings a study from the US National Bureau of Economic Research reported a largely positive impact on jobs. This research looked at the effect of a generative AI-based conversational assistant being introduced to assist customer service employees. Access to the tool increased productivity 14% on average, including a 34% improvement for novice and low-skilled workers, but with minimal impact on experienced and highly skilled workers. By spreading learning and best practices through the workforce, the AI tool improved productivity and customer sentiment, and increased employee retention, without causing many job losses.
It is worth noting that generative AI has barely reached workforces in poor countries. Consequently, the ILO research focused on the effect of the technology on jobs in the developed world. In lower-income countries, where insufficient infrastructure, lower skills and wage levels, and the relatively high costs of technological adoption limits the potential for deployment of AI, significant job losses are unlikely.
A recent study, by HEC Paris economics professor Antonin Bergeaud, recorded similar findings to the ILO. Bergeaud concluded that jobs directly replaceable by AI would only represent 5% of the jobs in a country like France, and automation could affect between 10% and 20% of workers, with a high prevalence at management level. His research involved a detailed analysis of the multitude of tasks performed by an average employee in 220 different professions. From this he was able to identify the professions likely to be highly automated and those that would benefit in terms of productivity and skill support. He concluded that generative AI is likely to decrease labour demand in certain sectors, but on the other hand, the productivity gains brought will lead to job creation in some complementary sectors.
Secretaries, accountants, and basic administrative roles, which are highly exposed to AI and involve few complex tasks, are the jobs most threatened. Other professions will also be substantially changed, even if they are not replaced. Whereas, relational jobs—such as those in healthcare or education—should be little affected by these transformations. Some workers will continue to be replaced by robots, but many manual jobs—plumbers and roofers—will remain unaffected. “Between 10% and 20% of employment, is a lot,” says Bergeaud, “but less than some alarmist discourses suggest when they talk about a near-total disappearance of employment."
The ILO suggest that generative AI is neither inherently good nor bad in its influence on the workplace, and that its socioeconomic impacts will largely depend on how its implementation is managed. They do however warn that “questions of power balance, voice of the workers affected by labour market adjustments, respect for existing norms and rights, and adequate use of national social protection and skills training systems will be crucial elements for managing AI’s deployment in the workplace.”
These three studies underline the need for policy makers and regulators to take intentional action aimed at managing the introduction of generative AI in the workplace—to protect employment while stimulating economic growth. They also call for employers to urgently focus on reskilling and up-skilling their organizations to harness the benefits of AI.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Access the research papers:
Generative AI and Jobs: A Global Analysis of Potential Effects on Job Quantity and Quality, ILO Working Paper 96 (2023). https://doi.org/10.54394/FHEM8239
Generative AI at Work, Erik Brynjolfsson, Danielle Li & Lindsey R. Raymond, National Bureau of Economic Research (2023) https://doi.org/10.3386/w31161
“Exposition à l’intelligence artificielle générative et emploi : une application à la classification socio-professionnelle française", Antonin Bergeaud (2024), HEC Paris Working Paper
A timely call for today’s five-generation workforces to find inclusive and integrated ways of working
