Over the last couple of years we have witnessed increasing societal concerns regarding the expected impact of artificial intelligence development in the jobs market.
This report from Goldman Sachs provides a fine example. Beyond making some commonplace assertions, such as the fact that “while the benefits of technological progress are felt by the economy as a whole over time, this is of little comfort to the individuals whose jobs are displaced by technology (with clear parallels to the impact of globalization)”, in the report the authors argued that “companies’ incentives to formally invest in employees’ human capital are dampened by the risk that the investments will be one-sided; employees may leave, taking the benefits of their training with them before the company has had a chance to recoup the expense. As a result, the burden of investing in human capital falls principally on individuals, who may not be well-placed to bear it”.
And that is, in my view, the really interesting point here. How public policy decisions will narrow or widen the jobs gap, depending on the chosen action route. Where will fundamental responsibility lie in bearing the costs of the required investment in human capital? What will be the rules of these new capital formation processes, needed for human workers to keep abreast with new technology advancements?
We are probably in the early days of a phase of increased scrutiny on the risk-reword and burden sharing dynamics underlying the acquisition of new skills demanded in the work place. This is a field ripe for fascinating innovation all around – and one with a lot at stake for all of us.
I have long held the belief that in the not-too-distant future education and research will largely converge. The skills to match future job demand will probably be best acquired through hands-on training akin to what we identify today as the researcher process.
