Toward understanding the impact of artificial intelligence on labor.
automation
economic resilience
employment
future of work
Journal
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
ISSN: 1091-6490
Titre abrégé: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7505876
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 04 2019
02 04 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
27
3
2019
medline:
27
3
2019
entrez:
27
3
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Rapid advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and automation technologies have the potential to significantly disrupt labor markets. While AI and automation can augment the productivity of some workers, they can replace the work done by others and will likely transform almost all occupations at least to some degree. Rising automation is happening in a period of growing economic inequality, raising fears of mass technological unemployment and a renewed call for policy efforts to address the consequences of technological change. In this paper we discuss the barriers that inhibit scientists from measuring the effects of AI and automation on the future of work. These barriers include the lack of high-quality data about the nature of work (e.g., the dynamic requirements of occupations), lack of empirically informed models of key microlevel processes (e.g., skill substitution and human-machine complementarity), and insufficient understanding of how cognitive technologies interact with broader economic dynamics and institutional mechanisms (e.g., urban migration and international trade policy). Overcoming these barriers requires improvements in the longitudinal and spatial resolution of data, as well as refinements to data on workplace skills. These improvements will enable multidisciplinary research to quantitatively monitor and predict the complex evolution of work in tandem with technological progress. Finally, given the fundamental uncertainty in predicting technological change, we recommend developing a decision framework that focuses on resilience to unexpected scenarios in addition to general equilibrium behavior.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30910965
pii: 1900949116
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1900949116
pmc: PMC6452673
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Pagination
6531-6539Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 the Author(s). Published by PNAS.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
J Dev Econ. 1975 Jun;2(2):165-87
pubmed: 12265914
Science. 2007 Jul 27;317(5837):482-7
pubmed: 17656717
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Jun 30;106(26):10570-5
pubmed: 19549871
PLoS One. 2013 May 02;8(5):e60808
pubmed: 23658682
PLoS One. 2013 Sep 09;8(9):e73676
pubmed: 24040021
J R Soc Interface. 2014 Nov 6;11(100):20140693
pubmed: 25165600
J R Soc Interface. 2015 May 6;12(106):null
pubmed: 25904530
JAMA. 2016 Feb 9;315(6):551-2
pubmed: 26864406
Nature. 2016 Feb 18;530(7590):307-12
pubmed: 26887493
Science. 2016 Feb 19;351(6275):818-9
pubmed: 26912882
Nature. 2017 Apr 13;544(7650):290-292
pubmed: 28426011
Science. 2017 Dec 22;358(6370):1530-1534
pubmed: 29269459
J R Soc Interface. 2018 Feb;15(139):
pubmed: 29436514
Sci Adv. 2018 Jul 18;4(7):eaao6030
pubmed: 30035214