Expert and Non-expert Opinion About Technological Unemployment
There is significant concern that technological advances, especially in robotics and artificial intelligence (AI), could lead to high levels of unemployment in the coming decades. Studies have estimated that around half of all current jobs are at risk of automation. To look into this issue in more depth, we surveyed experts in robotics and AI about the risk, and compared their views with those of non-experts. Whilst the experts predicted a significant number of occupations were at risk of automation in the next two decades, they were more cautious than people outside the field in predicting occupations at risk. Their predictions were consistent with their estimates for when computers might be expected to reach human level performance across a wide range of skills. These estimates were typically decades later than those of the non-experts. Technological barriers may therefore provide society with more time to prepare for an automated future than the public fear. In addition, public expectations may need to be dampened about the speed of progress to be expected in robotics and AI.
KeywordsSurvey technological unemployment artificial intelligence (AI)
This work was support by the Australian Research Council, the European Research Council, and the Asian Office of Aerospace Research & Development.
- The World Economic Forum. The Future of jobs: Employment, skills and workforce strategy for the fourth industrial revolution. Global Challenge Insight Report, The World Economic Forum, 2016.Google Scholar
- J. M. Keynes. Economic possibilities for our grandchildren. Essays in Persuasion, J. M. Keynes Ed., New York, USA: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 321–332, 1932.Google Scholar
- C. B. Frey, M. A. Osborne, The Future of Employment: How Susceptible are Jobs to Computerisation? Oxford, UK: University Martin School, 2013.Google Scholar
- H. Durrant-Whyte, L. McCalman, S. O’Callaghan, A. Reid, D. Steinberg. The impact of computerisation and automation on future employment. Australia’s Future Workforce? Chapter 1.4.Google Scholar
- C. B. Frey, M. A. Osborne, C. Holmes, E. Rahbari, E. Curmi, R. Garlick, J. Chua, G. Friedlander, P. Chalif, G. McDonald, M. Wilkie. Technology at work v2.0: The future is not what it used to be. Oxford University Martin School, UK, 2016.Google Scholar
- V. C. Müller, N. Bostrom. Future progress in artificial intelligence: A survey of expert opinion. Fundamental Issues of Artificial Intelligence, V. C. Müller, Ed., Berlin, Germany: Springer, pp. 555–572, 2014.Google Scholar
- D. Silver, A. Huang, C. J. Maddison, A. Guez, L. Sifre, G. van den Driessche, J. Schrittwieser, I. Antonoglou, V. Panneershelvam, M. Lanctot, S. Dieleman, D. Grewe, J. Nham, N. Kalchbrenner, I. Sutskever, T. Lillicrap, M. Leach, K. Kavukcuoglu, T. Graepel, D. Hassabis. Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search. Nature, vol. 529, no. 7587, pp. 484–489, 2016. DOI: 10.1038/nature16961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- T. A. Patel, M. Puppala, R. O. Ogunti, J. E. Ensor, T. C. He, J. B. Shewale, D. P. Ankerst, V. G. Kaklamani, A. A. Rodriguez, S. T. C. Wong, J. C. Chang. Correlating mammographic and pathologic findings in clinical decision support using natural language processing and data mining methods. Cancer, vol. 123, no. 1, pp. 114–121, 2017. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.v123.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- O. Etzioni. No, the experts don’t think super intelligent AI is a threat to humanity. MIT Technology Review, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Ed., Cambridge, MA, USA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2016.Google Scholar