The Future of Work and Artificial Intelligence

Changes in sexual performance are more common than most people realize, and support doesn't need to feel awkward. With MedExpress, everything happens privately online. Start by completing a short consultation reviewed by UK registered clinicians. If eligible, treatment is delivered discreetly to your home, with ongoing support whenever you need it. You're not alone in this. Visit medexpress.co.uk slash podcast to learn more. Most of the time on the Big View, we talk about the pressing issues in finance, business, and economics. The big knotty questions that keep investors, executives, and policymakers awake at night. This week, though, we're going to take something of a philosophical detour. We're going to talk about the beliefs that underpin the modern economy and society, whether those beliefs are still up to the task, and what, if anything, might replace them. This question stems from a paradox. Our societies have advanced in ways that were scarcely imaginable even a generation ago. In what we broadly refer to as the developed world, most people are materially better off, have less dangerous jobs, are less likely to die of war or disease, and have access to vast amounts more information and entertainment than even a few years ago. Yet this prosperity has brought with it a deep anxiety even, unhappiness. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of things to worry about, whether it's climate change or inequality or technology or conflict or immigration or social change, but human beings do seem to have a tendency to focus on the negative over marveling at the achievements that got us here today. So today we're going to explore that paradox and think about what might come next. I'm your host, Peter Furlos . To talk all this over, I invited Ryan Avon onto the show. Ryan is director of Portfolio Communications at Select Equity Group and a formeral journist at The Economist, who's the author of several books, The Wealth of Humans, which explored the effects of autom ation on the labor market, and now, in good faith, how the nature of belief shapes the fate of societies. And he joins me from Raleigh, North Carolina. Ryan Avon, welcome to the big view. Peter, it's great to be with you. Thanks for having me. So uh Ryan let's start with the sort of the conundrum of the age . In the developed world we are , broadly speaking, um healthier, more prosperous, materially better off than we were a few decades ago. So why aren't people happier? I think the the sort of place to start uh trying to answer that is to sort of think a little bit about what it is that actually allows society to operate well and um and to make progress over time. And I think the the model we've tended to work with over the past you know at least 100 years is that um you know, people are mostly interested in maximizing their utility. Um, and so as long as the income number goes up, um, we should be happier. Um, and I think what uh I arrived at in working on this book is is is something different, which is that, you know, first and foremost, we are cultural creatures and the way we um manage to cooperate together to generate, you know, economic growth, uh stable societies relies heavily on us communicating with each other, us um interacting with each other to to to kind of um uh you know both to share information and kind of establish norms for ourselves, but also that just makes us feel good because that's what we evolved to be. And so I think we've allowed that to erode. And so our sense of collective purpose has also eroded with it. Our institutions aren't working as well as they had been because of it. And I think we just all uh are feeling worse because we're not um really being true to ourselves as a species, so to speak. So let's talk about the word, a word that appears a lot in the book, which is the word belief. Um which which if I understand you correctly is sort of is a is a broader term almost than than faith, or at least faith in the sort of in the religious sense, the way people might think about it. What what what is so important about it in your view and and why have we forgotten about it or stopped talking about it ? Well, I think to take the sort of narrow economics-y sort of perspective on it, belief matters a lot because what we believe shapes how we behave. Uh it shapes our understanding of you know what it means to live a good life, uh, what kind of jobs we ought to have, how we ought to do them, um, that sort of thing. Um and I guess when you sort of take that seriously and you look back over our history as a species, then um you see that you know, we are these cultural creatures, the culture that allows us to work together is rooted in what we believe. And so over time, as we become more capable as a species, more able to, you know, build grand works and discover new knowledge and uh and develop new technologies and all that we can trace that I think to the evolution of our beliefs. Um so as we come to believe that it's a good thing to try to understand nature and use uh lessons from nature to figure out ways to live better. That allows us to develop practical technologies and deploy those and raise GDP. Um and and then I guess the last thing I'd sort of quickly say is that, you know, our our beliefs really inform our identity. So there's this sort of link between the collective outcomes and and and how we feel about ourselves. And and I think that's sort of where you get back to that um uh uh that divergence between actual incomes going up, GDP going up and and everyone being a little bit miserable So so the sort of the idea then is that the that belief is that's necessary for for for development and for innovation and and and kind of things you talk about, but we we have sort of stopped paying attention to it or we've stopped actually believing, or is it or is it actually that we just believe in in the world being in a certain way um uh that is no longer kind of fit for purpose? Yeah. I mean, I think it's a combination of things. Um I think that we've gotten used to the idea over the past century that, you know, again, that like our all we're really here to do is maximize our utility , that we should focus on living our best lives as individuals, consuming what we want to consume, that sort of thing. And um and as we've done that, we've neglected the the sort of communal beliefs that you know uh facilitate social interactions and that um help you feel good about the place you live and things like that. And so I think um that has eroded. I think that erosion has been you, know driven, uh by technology as well as by sort of um evolving understandings in the world. Um, you know, we've come up with better and better ways to live isolated lives um and to to uh spend time by ourselves when we otherwise might have been spending it out in the world. Um that's really sort of accelerated a lot in the over the past fifteen years with um social media and with smartphones and um obviously we we look around and we see people staring at screens. So I I think um, you know, that's uh an important sort of under way of thinking about what's happened. You know, the what the book also notes is that because this need for belief is rooted in our genes really. If the sort of things we had tended to believe or the things that sort of tended to hold us together erode, other things arise to fill the vacuum. And so a sort of a third way in which things I think are are getting tougher is that we have these new ideologies that are filling the vacuum. And that whether that's sort of um you know maga-like uh beliefs or the manosphere or uh uh or wokeness or whatever. Um people want to, you know, have a system of thinking about the world that ties them to other people and they'll find it somewhere if they don't find it in um, you know, in more productive belief sense Yeah. But so but to what extent is this just is this an uh an iteration of the issue that has you know kind of consumed many many philosophers uh um for for well for centuries really um which is the you know essentially the loss of the the d the demise of of of religious belief the rise of of of rationalism and and sort of the the the the loss of that kind of of religion as that organizing principle. Is that really what you're describing here or is it is it more than that? It's a bit it's a bit more than that. And and like the last thing I want to imply is that rationalism is bad, that science is bad. Like those things are are are wonderful. They're the reason we um can live like we do. Um but what I would say is that um uh you know those are kinds of belief that are also supported through this shared faith. Um so you know the the the beliefs that hold us together aren't limited to religion. Now obviously uh for thousands of years, community faith has been the big thing um holding societies together and um and uh and you know more recently as sort of nationalism has become more of the uniting principle of a lot of countries, like that is that's an an evolution of beliefs and a new kind of faith. Um so I think it's not uh you know the sort of answer to um the challenges we face now is not really let's all go back to being um you know uh members of of one church or whatever, not that we ever were. Um but let's not it's not let's have a religious rival. It's let's understand that our purpose here is a collective one and that it matters a lot whether we we feel like're on a shared mission together, what we think the sort of point of that mission is, and and you know, what are the core values that go along with that. And so for me, that's about long run progress, that's about learning to understand the universe better, that's about learning to take care of each other better and uh and just and and build a you know more peaceful, more knowledgeable, um, more capable world . So the one thing I w I wondered sort of uh reading your book and and and this comes up quite a bit is is is to what extent is this is there a possibility here that this is this is something that many people already know, but it's the economists who forgot about it. Right. I mean there isn't there is a tendency somewhat to to in economics to sort of, you know, you assume away all the sort of all these unhelpful sort of things that kind of in the background that actually might be quite important. And actually you could even say, you know , former economists, um, Adam Smith, whose wealth of nations is too just turned 250 years old, you know, the the problem with Adam Smith is that he he wrote two books. One was about economics and the other was about moral philosophy and everybody focuses on the wealth of nations rather than on the other one. So I I is there a sense here that just sort of this is a problem with the economics profession that it became too too sort of narrowly focused and and and that worldview has really sort of prevailed . The the the sort of original idea behind the book was was just this. Like economists are neglecting this important aspect of how people behave and think. understandings about the world. But it's sort of evolved over time. And I think, you know, I think economics has played a meaningful role in getting us to this place. Um, not in the sense that we all sat down and studied economics textbooks and were like, oh yeah, we should maximize util ity, but more in the sense that um uh you know, the core principles of kind of uh of economics um really uh came to infuse the worldview of the elite , uh the business elite, uh the political elite, and you know, things sort of radiate outward from there. And and so uh a you know the way I would sort of describe the the further evolution of this um the sort of initially sort of economicsy philosophy is that we we gave our selves permission over time as a society, a broad society, to um to give in to self-interest more often, right? To to worry more about our own um you know well being and and and sort of we give ourselves more permission to to think less about the collective good and about the welfare of others. It's more of a like a hustle culture culture, get yours while you can, um, you know, don't sweat others, that kind of thing. Um which I think we s we sort of see around us. So so so yeah, so so that kind of I mean people talk about it quite a lot in this sense of that sort of that idea of the free market, you know, we're all atomic actors, you know, maximizing our our utility. Um that became uh a sort of a way of seeing the world. I mean almost a belief, you might sort of argue. I definitely would, yes. And you know, you you you see this in sort of the um the very free market-oriented economics that kind of emerged um in the aftermath of the second world war, the sort of Chicago school freedman. I think the book describes him as being sort of an evangelist for for this way of thinking, right? That um you know that the the purpose of business is to maximize profit and um and I I think that that you know escaped the the uh the university and and and got out into the world . But but isn't there uh the the risk is slightly varying of course here, but I'm just sort of interested in this. Um isn't part of the problem that um that approach that way of thinking about about growth and development has has sort of um has reached its limits right or or not reached limits but it's sort of it's running out of puff. Um in the sense that we you know, we are not growing in the way that we used to grow and um you know, kind of the which which has all kinds of knock-on consequences in terms of the way people think about their ability to advance and their prospects and whether or not, you know, that if the pie isn't growing, then I have to take a bigger you have to try and defend my share of the pie from someone else. Stuff like that. So so is that it is is is there a an element here that that what we're seeing is sort of a um a kind of an exhaustion of of that kind of free market economics way of organizing things? I mean I mean I think a lot of people see it that way. Um uh and I I guess I would certainly say that um that we're we're getting to the point where our our our you know our needs are so our material needs are so satisfied that um some of us anyway, yeah. Most some of us. Absolutely. Uh important caveat. Um Yeah. But in the rich world and in most uh across much of the population, our material needs are so satisfied that um the sort of motive power of capitalism just we always need more um doesn't doesn't generate quite the outcomes we'd like. But I think you know, stepping back, I would say that um we can tell this story in terms of belief. Um and so on the one hand, you have um the set of beliefs that sort of really emerged in the postwar period um uh that uh uh it's it's it's really bad that we um despoil the environment when we um generate economic growth and that um in some you know in some sense development itself is bad. You see this sort of uh uh uh evolving into kind of the degrowth philosophy that that people sort of talk about these days. But but in general it's that you know it's kind of it would be better if humans had a smaller footprint on the earth. And like obviously there's a lot there that makes good sense. Um, you know, there are environmental damage is bad and climate change could could do uh horrible damage. So that's not wrong exactly, except that it sort of lacks uh faith in ourselves in our capacity to achieve both, to keep doing better things, keep increasing our capabilities while also protecting the environment, which we very much can do. Um and I think there's sort of a similar I mean exhaustion uh and a similar set of uh of beliefs that kind of have settled in in a different way which is um you know, which is that we you know, we've run out of ideas, um that we've um you know, that our our our capacity to come up with fundamentally new ways of doing things just isn't what it was, you know, we we've talked uh this uh over the past two decades, people talked a lot about how much changed between eighteen seventy and nineteen seventy and how little has changed since then. And I think there's this uh sort of complacency that settled over us, which again I would categorize uh characterize as a a loss of faith in you know our ability to keep learning new things about the universe. Um and so I think it is I don't I you know I think there's a lot that we should fix about capitalism, but I also think a big part of the story is that we've we've kind of forgotten that there are narratives out there that can lead us to better places where we're continuing to discover big new um ideas and we're continuing to transform the world with those ideas to make it a better place um in all sorts of ways. Um and so I that's sort of a one of my hopes for the book is that it will encourage this view that like, no, we're not done. We shouldn't. There's better world's achievable. So that I think that's very important and I I I definitely want to get your views on that. But just I mean I guess the other thing I would I I I'm curious for your thoughts on is is you could also sort of say that we've been here at various p points before in the just in the sort of in the capitalist period, right? I mean, um, you know, uh um if you go back to the industrial revolution, you know I mean there's a lot about what Karl Marx was writing about in the mid-19th century that is no longer really recognizable. But there are some of these things you could sort of, you know, you can draw a line from some of the arguments that that were being made at the time about the cr the critiques of capitalism and the the possible alternatives that were being presented, um, which you can sort of spin forward to today. So so is there an element here that this is just sort of I I don't want to diminish it, but a bit but this is a sort of a periodic spasm in the development of the world when when things aren't quite working the way people might have expected and there are sort of you know uh you know, un un unfortunate or un happy side effects and then something happens and we move on. No, I think that's a very good observation. Um and you know, I think uh uh it's important to understand that the sorts of the continuity that there is between problems we have now and problems we've had in the past. And I guess one thing I would sort of note here is that um, you know, the book is called in good faith and dwells a lot on faith. One of the ways that faith is important is that it helps us preserve cultural information. And so really over most of our history as a species, the way we adapted to new environments or came up with new technologies was through the evolution of culture uh and and its persistence over time. And the way that works is that you know we sort of have within us this deep um uh impetus to to do things the way they're supposed to be done just because that's the way they're supposed to be done. You know, we um build a canoe the way our father built a canoe, we prepare the maze the way our father prepared the maze, our mother prepared the maze, uh or or what have you um and and and and that was a that conservatism really that faithfulness was the way that we progressed for for for very a very long period of time as we got closer to the modern era , that preservation of beliefs led to this sort of funny um amalgam uh of of of beliefs, this sort of new faith that emerged in northwest Europe that led to explosive growth. And um and since then we've really gra ppled with this this conflict between, you know, the sort of reality on the ground that progress makes a lot of things better, um, but also this idea that we're we're losing a lot of stuff that's critical and the loss of this stuff is leading to new social problems that we just don't know how to manage. So I think it this is this is certainly a recurrence of something that's happened in the past and um and and we should see it that way and think about how to get out of it by learning from the past . Yeah and that point the point you make about the sort of the the the the culture the importance of that cultural the that handing down of of of kind of ways of doing things and people understanding how to you know, just intuitively almost understanding how things are done, uh that they've they haven't learned them s they have discovered for themselves, but they've learned from others is is often I think um sort of sort of exaggerated. But I just want to come back to this this idea of sort of, you know, um we should be more, you know, kind of positive and optimistic about things we can do. I mean, have you spent any time in Silicon Valley recently? I mean there's a whole there's a whole movement there. I mean they're always pretty optimistic, but there's a there's a whole movement there which is actually very tapped into this theme, right? Which is actually there are all these wonderful possibilities. Um, we're on the cusp of this incredible uh um uh uh phase of development. Uh uh, we've got artificial intelligence and all the other things this will make possible um and all the problems that it will solve. I mean uh but to I I I sense that's not what you're talking about, but that is something that comes up a lot. How how do you think about that? Yeah. I mean the book uh has this passage which which sort of um critiques this this manifesto that that Mark Andreessen wrote about you know uh our our the technological utopia that awaits us. But really it's all about technology for the sake of the yeah Mark Andriesov is uh was the the founder of Netscape and runs big uh uh tech fund, right? Um yeah. Yes, sorry. Um and and so you know it's it's more like worshipping technology than kind of you know, optimism about the future of humankind, uh, I think. Um and and you know, and I think part of that is because as this sort of social fabric has thinned in various ways. It's been easier for tech billionaires to just sort of isolate themselves in these little bubbles where they don't come into contact with normal people and normal values. Uh and and and can sort of go off in these uh in these directions where they're not really thinking about, you know, what are we actually trying to achieve with our progress? Um But you know, idea the the the thing that I find really sympathetic about those views is this idea that we're not done. And so, in a lot of ways, the kind of alienating way that they sort of evangelize about tech is disappointing to me because I'd like I'd like there to be technological optimism. I just want it to be much more focused on improving human welf are and in you know getting excited about the collective futures that we have ahead of us. Yeah. So so which brings us inevitably is every conversation these days uh that brings us to to artificial intelligence. Um and and the reason I'm um bringing that up is is because um you wrote a book a few years ago um called the wealth of humans, which was a sort of a an an exploration of the question of what automation I'm gonna summarize it, you know, so forgive me, but gonna summarize it very dramatically, and it's a few years since I read it. But um but basically that the the effects of of of automation would have on on the labour market. And um I mean my overriding impression from that was was it was really quite gloomy, right? Was essentially that that anything that would that that was in any way sort of large scale and and valuable in terms of labor that could be automated would be automated, and we would be left with lots of people who who really didn't have anything to do or would kind of fiddle about with sort of artisanal things making bread or whatever. Um I just I'm curious I don't exaggerating a little bit, but I that was kind of what I remember about it. I just curious sort of how is your given what's happened with with AI and automation in that in in the intervening period, has your has your thinking about that changed? Have you become any more optimistic about it? Um uh I've become both more optimistic and more pessimistic. Yeah, it's funny. I kind of wish in some ways I wish that that was the book I was releasing now. It was a bit, it was a little bit kind of ahead of the moment. And uh, you know, when we when we went through the pandemic and we suddenly had these massive labor shortages and wages were going up, I was like, maybe I really did get something wrong. Um but I it you know I think what we've seen um from the evolution of EI AI over the last uh five or so years, I think does suggest that, you know, there won't be a lot of human work in um in forty years that can't be done, you know, more efficiently, more cheaply, and probably better by a machine. Um and so in some ways that's a very pessimistic outlook. And I think the point I one point I tried to make in that older book is that it's a uh it's a worrying thing to think about because we have all these institutions that are designed for a world where there's full employment. And that's that's sort of how you organize society in a lot of ways. That's how you deliver benefits, government benefits, and and and insurance. Um and that's how people sort of form their identities of themselves and make sense of their lives. And so if that all goes away, then you you suddenly uh have all these structures that don't work like they're supposed to, uh, and and no structures that that fill the gaps. So um I think, you know, that problem is is staring us right in the face. And AI is going to make it um, you know, overwhelmingly clear that this is the problem we face, I think, over the next decade. Um and I I guess I think the thing that worries me most right now is that we don't seem to see it as our responsibility uh to sort of collectively talk about how we'd like our institu tions to change so that we get a good outcome here. You know, uh, what should ownership around uh you know AI and data and things like that look like? How should we uh think about uh you know, you know who, gets an income of what sort? Um and and then the big question, right? Like what do we do with ourselves when market work isn't the thing that occupies, you know, most of our day. Um and you know, we're a long way away from sort of having some sort of consensus about what the good life is um and and you know what we'll what we'll be able to do as a society that will allow us to enjoy the productivity benefits of AI without becoming, you know depressed and antisocial and and who knows what else. Yeah. Because I think I mean yeah well because obviously one of the one of the critiques you could make is obviously people in the past have have talked have imagined periods where where productivity gains would had happened and and then we would all have you know our our material wants would have been largely fulfilled and we would have lots of time to write poetry or you know kind of walk around in the in the outdoors or something like that. And obviously that hasn't happened. But I think the interesting point you make in this book is is is that's kind of hasn't happened. It's not partly been a choice, right? There's been a there's been a choice to to prioritize consumption or more accumulation of of of, you know, wealth or whatever. Um and so is there maybe a sense here that that maybe AI might sort of an automation more generally might be might sort of create an opportunity for us to change the way we think about that ? Uh well there definitely is. Um I think you see it happening already. Um over the last year there's been a sort of you know, the share of people taking very seriously the possibility that we're gonna be dealing with, you know s significant disruption of the labor force, I think it has gone up a lot. Um and I think you're right. Or I I think you're right in what you say about my views on this, which is that it is a choice to a large extent. Um I think the the hard thing is that we, you know, not only have we not realized that it's a choice that we need to make, but at the same time, we've also allowed the mechanisms social mechanisms that we use to kind of have these broad discussions and come to some sort of social consensus uh sort of erode around us. So we're we're less equipped to answer this question in a good way um even as we sort of start to to realize that maybe that's a thing we need to to to do. Um so I you know I'm I I it's I I don't uh I worry that the the sort of the grappling that we will do uh with AI is is sort of of a unproductive kind where we're like you know sort of knee jerk uh opponents of it and uh and and just sort of cut off all the progress that we could have with that um rather than finding a a better way to make it m uh you know make it work for us. But uh you know, it's it's early days, like if you think about the nineteenth century and the economic disruption then, like it took decades upon decades to develop, you know, trade unions and um and and expand uh suffrage and have labor parties and social wealth uh safety nets, all the things that sort of allowed modern industrialized economies to work. So um, you know, I j I just it yeah, you just have to worry about the timeline, right? AI's getting better pretty quickly. So how much time do we have? Uh hopefully we'll develop some urgency about it. Yeah, we may not have the decades that uh yeah that that they had in the nineteenth century. Um so uh right I think I think we probably have to leave it there. I mean this we could talk about this for much longer, um uh uh and I'm sure we will another time. Um but uh but this is and this has been definitely a a a change of topic and a sort of broader a broader uh broader view of of things than than we normally talk about on the show. So um uh but it's been really really fascinating. So thank you very much for uh for taking the time. Well I appreciate it and I I thank you very much. It's a been a fun conversation. That's our show this week. Thanks to Ryan for that great conversation. And as always, thanks to you for tuning in. This podcast was produced by Oliver Tazich and Pranov Kieran. With the help of Michael Copeland and John Hodge in the studio here in London, you can check out a new episode of The Big View every Tuesday. Don't forget to tune into our sister show, Viewsroom every Thursday, and all the other great podcasts from the Reuters team. To get in touch with feedback and suggestions for future shows, please email us on breakingvie at tr.com. That's breaking views hyphenpodcasts at tr .com. If you like what you heard, please rate the show or leave a comment or a review. Breakingviews subscribers can read all our views on bigglobalstories at breakingviews.com, or you can read a sample of some of our columnist work every day at Reuters. com .