FOLLOW US

As businesses rapidly adopt AI tools for tasks such as speech translation and language learning models. According to the online periodical Insider Tech, many workers are panicking about the potential for job loss due to automation.

Noah Smith, the renowned economist, and writer behind the popular "Noahpinion" newsletter, argues that the fear of automation-induced unemployment may be exaggerated. 

In a recent post, Smith sheds light on the nuances of AI tools in business and debunks the common misconceptions associated with job automation.

Smith starts by highlighting that the term "automation" is often loosely defined in studies on the topic. And that makes it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about its impact on jobs. 

He points out that some scenarios presented in these studies even reveal the potential benefits of automation. This includes allowing workers to automate mundane tasks and move to more responsible job roles. 

Smith argues that the labor market is not just about automation, but also about how it changes overall, including the creation of new jobs with higher wages.

The job loss paradox 

Many studies tend to focus solely on automation. And that may create a skewed perception that workers are always the losers in the situation, even if that's not necessarily the case.

Smith also raises the issue of subjective assessment in older studies. And this seems that determine the risk of job replacement.

 He cites a study by Frey and Osborne in 2013, where researchers hand-labeled jobs from a database developed by the US Department of Labor as either "automatable" or not. 

Smith claims subjective bias can affect such assessments. And he adds that studies have since improved their methodology.

Next wave automation

Smith references a recent study by Goldman Sachs that takes a more holistic approach to assessing AI's impact on automation.

Instead of focusing on entire jobs, the study views jobs as a sum of tasks described in a government database. The study acknowledges that automation can complement instead of replacing a worker's efforts. It works best when only certain tasks are automated. 

Best case, technology can create new tasks and jobs, which makes workers more productive in performing other tasks. 

However, Smith points out that even with such findings, some media outlets still sensationalize the results with headlines that perpetuate the "robots take our jobs" narrative, disregarding the nuances of the study.

Smith says that workers shouldn’t fear job loss from automation. Because a lot of the problem is an exaggerated narrative.