FT column questions whether AI will eliminate the need for human work

In short: A Financial Times opinion column argues there are reasons to doubt that AI and automation will remove the need for human workers, because people may still prefer and pay for human-made goods and services.

What's going on

A new debate is growing around a simple question, if AI can do more tasks cheaply, will there still be enough work for people. In the Financial Times, columnist Sarah O’Connor points to an idea from economist Alex Imas, recently appointed Director of AGI Economics at Google DeepMind.

Imas argues that even in a future where machines can produce most things for less, demand for human work may not disappear. As people become wealthier, they often spend more on things where the human touch is part of the value. Think of paying for a personal trainer instead of a big gym class, or buying a painting instead of a mass-made poster.

O’Connor says this helps explain why a “world without work” is not guaranteed. But she highlights two big problems. First is who gets the money from higher productivity. If the gains mostly go to a small group at the top, many people could end up competing for low-paid, service-style work serving that small group.

Second is whether buyers can tell what is human-made. Research cited in the column suggests people value art less even with small amounts of AI involvement, but they often cannot spot AI work unless it is disclosed. Tools to detect AI-made content may help in areas like music, but AI detection for writing is still unreliable.

What to watch

More creators may try to prove their work is human, such as showing their process or focusing on live performance. Policymakers and platforms may also face pressure to improve labeling, so buyers know what they are paying for.

Source: Financial Times