‘Only Humans Need Apply’
‘Only Humans Need Apply’ by Thomas Davenport and Julia
Kirby
Review by Andrew Hill
Developers must seek to help us perform our 'most human
and most valuable work better', the authors say
An IBM executive told a recent conference that when
supercomputer Deep Blue was halfway through its 1997 chess match with Garry
Kasparov, it made a random move, due to a software bug. Assuming the machine
was smarter than it was, Kasparov later made a strategic error that helped hand
Deep Blue victory in the match.
Thomas Davenport and Julia Kirby warn that humans could,
like Kasparov, cede the future to machines too easily. “Many knowledge workers
are fearful,” they write. “We should be concerned, given the potential for
these unprecedented tools to make us redundant. But we should not feel helpless
in the midst of the large-scale change unfolding around us.”
Only Humans Need Apply falls into the sub-genre of
techno-optimism, at the opposite end of the bookshelf from, say, Martin Ford’s
doomier Rise of the Robots.
Not all of every job can be automated, the authors point
out. Change may be a long time coming (they cite futurist Paul Saffo’s wise
insight: “Never mistake a clear view for a short distance”). Critically, humans
have the power to shape their destiny. They can develop, program and direct
machines, and adapt to working with them, in a process of “augmentation” rather
than mere automation. Machines, up to now “the brawn to our brains, can become
the brains to our brio”.
Having deftly outlined the gloomier forecasts, Kirby and
Davenport lay out how to avoid submission to, or substitution by, machines. A
few senior managers will step up into overseeing automated systems. Other
workers will step aside, by developing careers in areas machines are not as
good at, such as motivation, creativity or empathy.
Still others will step in (by learning more about how
computers work and how to improve them), step narrowly (becoming
super-specialists), or step forward to develop new systems and technology.
Plenty of people have already made these changes, and
they describe many of them. Here is the redundant lawyer who “stepped in” to
become an expert overseer of automated contract reviews; or the editor who
“stepped up” to develop a computerised system for preparing and publishing
sports statistics and earnings reports. If you pair adaptable humans with
computers, you can remove tedious tasks and manage the change humanely.
Developers must “look for ways to help humans perform
their most human and most valuable work better”, the authors say. Simply
asserting this bright future will not make it occur, however. The temptation
for bosses to opt for the most efficient robot solution is strong. Davenport
and Kirby “expect corporations’ efforts to keep human workers employable will
become part of their ‘social licence to operate’”. But is that wishful thinking
and, even if not, will it happen soon enough?
This is a fine call to action in the face of uncertainty.
But let us program the automated story-writing tool for a sequel in 2026. Only
then will we know whether humans who stepped up, in or forward, sustained a
fulfilling working existence, or were merely treading water ahead of a tsunami.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2016.
Comments
Post a Comment