Human or AI workforce - Is it really a dilemma or just a lazy option?

In March 2023, a report by Goldman Sachs stated that AI poses a risk to over 300 million jobs. It’s a big figure, which is made slightly more ominous - but less immediate - by the lack of timeline provided. Doom! Coming… soon…maybe?

Clickbait merchants went wild, ignoring - or downplaying - key elements of the study, such as the fact that job displacement by automation is historically offset by new job creation, or that the 300m number might not be that high or widely felt. The authors also caveat the power of AI, claiming that AI might not live up to expectations.

So we shouldn’t worry then - back to using AI as a fancy Google?

No. Leaders and employees should never be complacent on emerging trends and technology - Lazy advice that probably applies to most things in life, but stick with me.

An AI worker

Does motivation and intention matter?

Goldman Sachs, the company behind the study, gave some positive news for about 0.001% of the population. They cite the “good news” of “significant labour cost savings” and a few other factors which may result in “the possibility of a productivity boom” [source]. To most real-life human people, this ultimately means jobs losses for some and wage suppression for others. This is amazing news for shareholders, but pretty awful news for everyone else involved.

So let’s look at why Goldman Sachs think this is good news. Let's look at their Purpose and Values:

“We aspire to be the world’s most exceptional financial institution, united by our shared values of partnership, client service, integrity and excellence.

Drawing on over 150 years of experience working with the world’s leading businesses, entrepreneurs, and institutions, we mobilize our people, culture, technologies, and ideas to advance the success of our clients, broaden individual prosperity, and accelerate economic progress for all.”

I couldn’t help myself but ask ChatGPT about the ethics and values of Goldman Sachs and similar companies. In the responses provided, the following came back:

“The public commitments these institutions make to ethical behaviour and the controversies they've been involved in illustrate a disconnect between stated values and actions. In some instances, these organizations have been accused of prioritizing profit over the well-being of their clients or the public, engaging in fraudulent activities, contributing to financial crises, or fostering harmful workplace cultures. These instances raise important questions about corporate ethics and responsibility in the financial industry.”

Why am I - and ChatGPT - shitting on these big financial heavyweights? Well, it’s because of the sheer influence they have to impact decisions of leaders, the wellbeing of employees, and government policy. If these reports can have such an impact and reach, then we must look at the purpose and values of the author to fully understand their motivations and what they are hoping to achieve. In my view, these motivations are shareholder value before all else - be that the shareholders of Goldman Sachs, or the shareholders of the companies paying them - everyone else is dispensable in favour of profit, and if AI can facilitate this, then good for it! The bonus, GDP or some other metric will increase! Points & Profit before People…

Is AI going to impact us?

So, as leaders who care more about the bottom line, how are we going to face up to the AI or Human Workforce dilemma? Understandably we want to make sure our organisations remain competitive, profitable and efficient. If we had the opportunity to fire a loyal, effective and experienced team member and replace them with cheaper AI that could do the role, would we take it? Most leaders, be they shareholders or not, would struggle to argue against the pure logic of this deal. However, this deal - and almost all other shareholder centric tactics - fall into the trap of going after a “better, faster, cheaper” business model. This model will always be at risk when some solo founder - with nothing but an array of AI tools and a laptop - sets-up in a week and starts being better, faster and cheaper than you, and so on.

If AI can replace a role, then by all means, I think it should. However the actual person carrying out the role shouldn’t necessarily be let go for the “significant labour cost savings”. There is a huge opportunity for organisations to use AI not to replace jobs, but to realign roles to more effective areas of business model differentiation. Yes, take the manual, inefficient tasks, and automate the hell out of them, but the person who does those tasks might have 10+ years of experience that could analyse data with a host of variables AI won’t know. If it’s anything customer facing, that person could be holding on to a wealth of customer data that Meta or Google would kill for, simply by naturally building a rapport with people. This is also known as just being a decent human being, and AI can’t replace that.

How do we make the right choices?

AI is going to bring about some changes, but it may just expose issues that are already present. Should someone’s role be easily replaced by AI, and the individual truly has no further value to bring to the organisation, then I would question if AI is simply highlighting an existing capability issue? Or, as a leader, are we not being innovative enough in our thinking to adapt and disrupt the business model to take advantage of the possibility of an extra pair of hands.

The other challenge is that if AI can so easily replace a job that’s being done, and the people are truly surplus to requirement even after exploring the above, then I would suggest there was also pre-existing bloat in the organisation that would have naturally been found and remedied anyway.

If you are all for letting good people go, simply because of the wage saving, and particularly when the organisation is not in a financial crisis, then you probably won’t like me, but thanks for reading!

Goldman Sachs have produced a fine piece of research conducted by - I’m sure - lovely people. Leaders should examine the values and purpose of Goldman Sachs, and of their own organisations, to now think how to respond to an issue that is on the horizon. By putting a core vision and mission first, and considering all the options available to you to achieve it, we can all make more sustainable and impactful decisions that benefit everyone on our journey.