I had a discussion on the same topic of AI taking jobs away with one of the most intelligent people I know and an original thinker earlier today, and here is our conclusion:
1. Implementation is where the rubber meets the road.
There’s always a gap between theoretical capabilities and practical implementation. While AI may seem powerful in controlled environments, the real world is full of edge cases—unpredictable scenarios that systems weren't designed to handle. These edge cases often reveal the limitations of even the most advanced technologies.
For example:
- Autonomous vehicles: Despite their impressive capabilities in ideal conditions, challenges like lousy weather, unpredictable pedestrians, and local traffic laws have slowed their rollout.
- Healthcare AI: Models can diagnose diseases with incredible accuracy, but implementing them in hospitals requires regulatory approval, integration with existing systems, and trust from doctors and patients.
Ultimately, implementation is where the actual test of AI’s impact will occur. It’s not just about what AI can do but whether it can deliver consistent, reliable results in the messy realities of the world.
2. Capable by 2034, but not necessarily sufficient.
The distinction between capability and utility is critical. By 2034, AI will almost certainly be capable of automating many tasks. However, just because it can do something doesn’t mean it will fully replace human roles or meet all needs.
For instance:
- AI might automate 95% of a job, but the remaining 5%—often involving creativity, ethical judgment, or empathy—could still require human involvement.
Broader systemic issues, like regulatory frameworks, public trust, and ethical alignment, might not be ready for AI to fully take over.
Even with advanced capabilities, we’ll likely see a hybrid model where AI handles repetitive or technical tasks while humans oversee and address the gaps it can’t fill.
3. Will it reach everyone? Probably not.
This reflects the reality that technological progress is rarely, if ever, evenly distributed. William Gibson’s famous quote—“The future is already here; it’s just not evenly distributed”—is a perfect fit.
We’ve seen this pattern with countless technologies:
- The internet revolutionized communication, but millions still lack reliable access.
- Advanced healthcare tools exist but often remain out of reach for low-income or rural populations.
Similarly, AI adoption will vary widely. Wealthier nations, industries, and companies will likely benefit first, while less developed regions or sectors may lag. Cultural, economic, and political factors will also shape how widely AI spreads. For many, the question may not be whether AI is capable but whether they’ll have access to it at all.
4. Human behavior and incentives drive innovation.
Humans are remarkably adaptable, and when faced with constraints, they often innovate unexpectedly. Incentives play a huge role in shaping outcomes. As Charlie Munger said, “Show me the incentive, and I’ll show you the outcome.”
AI will likely follow a similar pattern. While it will undoubtedly disrupt many roles, it will also create opportunities—especially if the right incentives encourage humans to collaborate with AI instead of competing against it.
I have some more thoughts. I will write them later.
I agree with your conclusion that implementation is key (it is everything) and that AI's success hinges on its ability to navigate the complexities of the real world. Your examples of autonomous vehicles and healthcare AI perfectly illustrate this point. It's easy to get caught up in the hype, but true value lies in consistent, reliable real-world performance.
However, with respect to the potential for a "hybrid model" where humans and AI collaborate, this will be a middle road case and then I believe the extent of human involvement might be less than anticipated. As AI systems become more sophisticated, they may be able to handle tasks that currently seem to require uniquely human skills like creativity, ethical judgment, and empathy.
Large US companies are directly responsible to shareholders, will IBM keep 10,000 people employed in eastern europe, or Citi Bank, 5000 people, in call centers and back offices when AI can do that job? There are 300,000 people in these roles and maybe 900,000 reliant on the ecosystem - these jobs will go and its still unknown what will replace them?
This is a small example but there are many others. What will happen when all shipping companies wake up to the fact that Google AI helped CMG improve routes, optimization and profitability to a huge extent - shipping as a global trade employees millions of people - this industry could see a 15% cull within a few years.
Concerning Charlie Minger -- Granted data center work will boost employment, as will clean energy transition... so there is future hope for jobs - I will write about this as a counterargument to the downside.
The original comment was written in the context of 2034 as a potential milestone when most jobs could face significant automation or replacement. However, it’s crucial to recognize that hybrid jobs combining human expertise with machine capabilities will persist as long as full automation remains technologically or economically infeasible. The timeline for complete automation will vary significantly across domains and subfields, influenced by technological complexity, societal acceptance, regulatory constraints, and economic incentives. While automation will undoubtedly reduce the workforce required for many professions over time, this process will not be uniform, predictable, or universally applicable.
Skilled Trades and the Limits of Robotics
Certain professions, such as plumbers, electricians, and similar skilled trades, will likely remain human-dominated for several decades. The resilience of these professions lies in the inherent limitations of current and foreseeable robotics technology:
- Dexterity and adaptability: Robotics struggles with the fine motor skills and nuanced problem-solving required in these fields. Skilled trades often demand precise, context-sensitive actions that machines cannot yet replicate.
- Unstructured environments: These professions frequently involve work in variable and unpredictable settings, such as homes, construction sites, and outdoor environments, which are challenging for robots to navigate autonomously.
- Cost-effectiveness: The expense of developing, manufacturing, and deploying robots capable of handling such complex and variable tasks often outweighs the benefits, making human labor the more practical choice for the foreseeable future.
Without breakthroughs in robotics—particularly in dexterity, adaptability, and economic efficiency—these professions will continue to rely on human expertise and remain resistant to automation.
The Risks of a Rushed Transition
If the adoption of automation is carried out hastily, driven primarily by the pursuit of profit for a select few organizations or individuals without consideration for societal well-being, it could lead to severe consequences, including:
- Civil unrest: Mass unemployment, coupled with inadequate safety nets or societal preparation, could spark widespread protests, dissatisfaction, and social instability.
- Sabotage and resistance: Individuals or groups whose livelihoods are threatened by automation may actively resist or sabotage systems, slowing progress and creating stakeholder conflict. Here is an example: https://tinyurl.com/489fj3zb
- Geopolitical conflicts: Poorly managed automation could exacerbate economic inequality and instability, leading to tensions and conflicts between nations or societal groups.
While technology can potentially improve the quality of life for everyone, a careless or exploitative approach risks creating widespread harm; managing this transition responsibly requires thoughtful planning and policies prioritizing fairness, equity, and long-term societal well-being over short-term profits.
The Inevitable Nature of Technological Progress
History has repeatedly shown that once a technology demonstrates clear advantages, its adoption may be delayed but cannot be stopped. Resistance can slow the pace of change, but ultimately, technological progress is inevitable. The challenge lies in managing the transition effectively—ensuring that the benefits of automation are widely shared while minimizing its risks. This includes implementing policies that mitigate negative impacts, provide equitable access to technological advancements, and support those most affected by job displacement.
Work as Identity and Purpose
The assumption that universal basic income (UBI) and retraining programs alone can address the challenges of automation-induced unemployment is a dangerous oversimplification. Work is not just a means of earning a living—it is a cornerstone of the population's identity, purpose, and motivation. For many—perhaps 30-40%—their profession is deeply intertwined with their sense of self-worth, societal recognition, and daily structure.
Professions such as doctors, engineers, lawyers, scientists, and other skilled roles are often tied to identity and purpose. The loss of these roles cannot simply be compensated with financial security or retraining for a new career, especially if the new profession is perceived as less meaningful or lacks the same intellectual challenge and prestige. The psychological consequences of removing such identities can lead to feelings of emptiness, disconnection, and existential crisis, as work often provides individuals with a sense of value and contribution to society.
While UBI may address financial needs, it fails to replace intrinsic motivation from meaningful work—contributing to society, achieving tangible goals, and being valued for one’s unique skills. Similarly, retraining programs have inherent limitations. Not everyone can or wants to transition into a new field, particularly if that field does not align with their skills, passions, or sense of identity. For example, retraining a displaced scientist to work in a service industry role or an engineer to shift into a creative field may not provide the same fulfillment or sense of purpose.
The transition to widespread automation is not just an economic or technological challenge but a societal and psychological one. Work is deeply embedded in human identity, and its loss cannot be addressed solely through financial compensation or retraining programs. To ensure a smooth and equitable transition, society must adopt a holistic approach considering human well-being's intangible but critical aspects: identity, purpose, and motivation.
You're absolutely right about the persistence of hybrid jobs. While automation will reshape the workforce, it won't eliminate many professions entirely. Skilled trades, for example, will likely remain human-dominated due to the limitations of current robotics technology as you said.
You are precise on most points. A rushed transition, driven solely by profit motives, could have severe consequences, including social unrest and geopolitical instability.
Managing this transition responsibly is crucial. We need policies that prioritize fairness, equity, and long-term well-being. This includes addressing the psychological impact of job displacement, as work plays a significant role in our identity and purpose. This will be a tough one!
Ultimately, the future is inevitable, but we can shape how it unfolds. By being proactive and thoughtful, we can ensure a smoother and more equitable transition for everyone. I like these discussions and know that they will lead to something.
The following is the reason why I read almost anything, as most great ideas come from outside of my field:
I’ve been reading a book about how to have a successful retirement, and it made me reflect on the growing challenges people face when it comes to identity and purpose—especially with AI and automation increasingly taking away jobs. It’s easy to see how someone’s sense of self and meaning can feel lost when their work, which has often defined them for so long, is no longer part of their daily life.
This reminds me of retirees, who often face a similar identity and purpose challenge when they leave their careers. My grandfather and father are two inspiring examples of navigating this transition successfully. Both had long and meaningful careers, yet they could redefine themselves in retirement. My grandfather thrived for 41 years after retiring, and my father has already been retired for over 20 years.
What’s remarkable is how they carried the habits, mindset, and adaptability from their working years into this new chapter of life. Instead of letting retirement strip away their identity or purpose, they embraced it as an opportunity to grow and find new meaning. Whether through hobbies, relationships, or contributing to their family, they found ways to stay engaged and fulfilled.
Their experiences hold valuable lessons for today’s world, where the rise of AI is forcing many people to rethink their roles and sense of purpose. Just like retirees, those impacted by job loss or career uncertainty can find ways to redefine themselves by focusing on what truly matters—personal growth, lifelong learning, or finding new ways to contribute to society.
My grandfather and father have shown me that purpose isn’t tied to a job title; it’s something we can create and recreate, no matter the stage of life or the challenges we face.
Your grandfather and father sound like incredible role models! It's true that retirement, and even job displacement due to AI, can force us to confront questions of identity and purpose. But as your family members demonstrate, it can also be an opportunity for reinvention and growth.
We do need to cultivate adaptability and a specific mindset throughout our working years, as these are invaluable assets when navigating any transitions. Your grandfather and father actively sought new avenues for engagement and fulfillment, proving that purpose isn't confined to a job title.
The big question for me that people should think about, is not job title, but challenge, to have hobbies, interests, activities that stretch you and as you say "personal growth, lifelong learning, or finding new ways to contribute to society". I see family members wilt away because they do not have those challenges, they become pawns to the TV screens.
This is why I mentioned 'play and art' in my recent post - these other activities can be where we find true fulfillment.
As I said a few times in the last 24 hours, we cannot ignore the human factor. Ignoring or undermining it will create a situation we may be unable to handle.
Two quotes for you:
1. “Desperate men are easy to inspire but difficult to reassure.” — Barry S. Strauss
2. “Desperate men do desperate things when you take hope away.” — Chuck Hagel
My friend and I still continue the discussion on this topic. Here is out most recent conclusion about silicon valley and VCs:
"Systems improve significantly when decision-makers have skin in the game—that is, when they are directly impacted by the outcomes of their decisions. Without personal risk, people are more likely to make reckless or thoughtless choices that negatively affect others, often prioritizing their own short-term gains over long-term stability or fairness. When decision-makers are shielded from the consequences of their actions, it creates imbalances and fosters irresponsibility. For any system to maintain integrity and fairness, those who make decisions must also face the consequences of their choices. This accountability ensures that decisions are made with greater care, empathy, and alignment with the interests of those affected."
That is an excellent comment - Education is broken. I despair at many universities, the droll dished out, when we are meant to be preparing young people to think and for the workplace, is dire.. it is fractured to say the least. I agree with you wholeheartedly about the liberal arts and have a post about to go live on that.
For me, the Purpose of Education at the Highest Level:
1. Expose Students to Diverse Perspectives
Education should teach students a wide range of ideas, including those we may believe to be incorrect. This enables them to critically evaluate, analyze, and differentiate between what is right and wrong. True understanding arises from engaging with differing viewpoints, fostering intellectual independence, and building critical thinking skills.
2. Emphasize the Journey, Not Just the Outcome
Education should not stop at presenting final conclusions, such as Newton's laws or scientific breakthroughs. Instead, it must illuminate the process—highlighting the failures, mistakes, and moments of ignorance that preceded success. This teaches students that progress is rarely linear and that perseverance, curiosity, and resilience are integral to achievement.
3. Equip Students with Tools for Thought
Education must empower students not only with the ability to think critically ("how to think") but also with the discernment to focus on meaningful questions and ideas ("what to think"). This balance ensures they are both independent thinkers and grounded in a sense of purpose, capable of navigating the complexities of the world.
The findings revealed a significant negative correlation between frequent AI tool usage and critical thinking abilities, mediated by increased cognitive offloading. Younger participants exhibited higher dependence on AI tools and lower critical thinking scores compared to older participants. Furthermore, higher educational attainment was associated with better critical thinking skills, regardless of AI usage. These results highlight the potential cognitive costs of AI tool reliance, emphasising the need for educational strategies that promote critical engagement with AI technologies.
Interesting post. I will have to think on how to be less mediocre, how to transcend being merely average.
With that said, I question whether any educational system could be designed that equips most (or even a large minority) of people to adapt to AI. The last few decades have seen repeated refrains for better education as a solution to labour market dislocation. Do you remember when newspapers were talking about teaching miners or truckers to code? At least for older workers, I’ve seen very little in the way of encouraging evidence that would suggest reskilling is possible. And even for younger workers the prospects seem somewhat gloomy. Sure, if one is within say the top 5-10% of intellectual ability and conscientiousness then education might work (though I think even this might is too generous a threshold). But for everybody else? I don’t know. I worry for myself in this regard because I doubt I’d cross the minimum threshold.
Thank you Sam. It is a dilemma for sure. I believe all of us have what it takes to find something that drives us. I remember having a discussion with an MIT physicist once and she told me, the most important thing is to pick something and stick with it and do it to the best of your ability, at some stage you will get bored and want to quit, but persevere and you will become the best in 'your world' at that thing. I agree with her, based on experience and nurturing many students to try to find their 'thing.'
As for the education system, its broken wherever we look! Marginal Gains has some good comments above.
Reskilling, again comes down to appetite, is it something we want to do? Drive is essential, then good teachers, mentors, colleagues and so on - lots of pieces need to come together. Some truckers may make it as coders, but without motivated truckers and motivated teachers, who care for the students - it will not happen, generally that is how our systems in the West fail, it is about incentives.
In my 60s now and still feel I will throw myself at what I want to learn!
I wonder where Alexander got this number from "Estimates suggest that AI will create up to 50 million new jobs and provide up to $15.7 trillion of global economic output by 2030." I respect him a lot but data annotators is not exactly a sonderful, long term job. https://scale.com/blog/win-the-ai-war
I think the future will be a bit like in the 1976 film "Logan's Run". There will be those who live in 'The System' with everything provided in the perfect city -- and there will be those outside scraping a living in the wild periphery. Bit like today, really. Just extrapolate the essence of what we already have, and technology will amplify and embed existing power structures.
Are there any signs it might be different? Wise elders stepping up into power-positions government, perhaps? Examples of restraint and humility by the rich & famous? Social unrest being taken as sign to 'talk to the people', rather than taser them? I'm looking for signs of hope. I don't see much. Meanwhile where I live, we build community, do exchanges without money, and learn to be self-reliant. It might not be the answer, but a remnant needs to survive at least.
It is important to always have hope. I still very much believe in human ingenuity. Community is essential, and agreed non financial trade and trust is a cornerstone of wealth. Just not the wealth we think of. It is the long term I worry about, the future for my daughter.
The elite have always been the power brokers, and too many of us on the treadmill, this is why I am keen to raise awareness and maybe we can manage a different society at some point - but as I have written before too many would prefer to go to a gladiator contest than have deep dialogue and work the fields, build a home, develop relations.
I'm glad you mentioned the word trust. Ever since I heard the words "Trust is the new currency" (from Satish Kumar or someone at the Schumacher College) I have been on some kind of road to experience and cultivate this vital 'trust' in human relations.
I had a discussion on the same topic of AI taking jobs away with one of the most intelligent people I know and an original thinker earlier today, and here is our conclusion:
1. Implementation is where the rubber meets the road.
There’s always a gap between theoretical capabilities and practical implementation. While AI may seem powerful in controlled environments, the real world is full of edge cases—unpredictable scenarios that systems weren't designed to handle. These edge cases often reveal the limitations of even the most advanced technologies.
For example:
- Autonomous vehicles: Despite their impressive capabilities in ideal conditions, challenges like lousy weather, unpredictable pedestrians, and local traffic laws have slowed their rollout.
- Healthcare AI: Models can diagnose diseases with incredible accuracy, but implementing them in hospitals requires regulatory approval, integration with existing systems, and trust from doctors and patients.
Ultimately, implementation is where the actual test of AI’s impact will occur. It’s not just about what AI can do but whether it can deliver consistent, reliable results in the messy realities of the world.
2. Capable by 2034, but not necessarily sufficient.
The distinction between capability and utility is critical. By 2034, AI will almost certainly be capable of automating many tasks. However, just because it can do something doesn’t mean it will fully replace human roles or meet all needs.
For instance:
- AI might automate 95% of a job, but the remaining 5%—often involving creativity, ethical judgment, or empathy—could still require human involvement.
Broader systemic issues, like regulatory frameworks, public trust, and ethical alignment, might not be ready for AI to fully take over.
Even with advanced capabilities, we’ll likely see a hybrid model where AI handles repetitive or technical tasks while humans oversee and address the gaps it can’t fill.
3. Will it reach everyone? Probably not.
This reflects the reality that technological progress is rarely, if ever, evenly distributed. William Gibson’s famous quote—“The future is already here; it’s just not evenly distributed”—is a perfect fit.
We’ve seen this pattern with countless technologies:
- The internet revolutionized communication, but millions still lack reliable access.
- Advanced healthcare tools exist but often remain out of reach for low-income or rural populations.
Similarly, AI adoption will vary widely. Wealthier nations, industries, and companies will likely benefit first, while less developed regions or sectors may lag. Cultural, economic, and political factors will also shape how widely AI spreads. For many, the question may not be whether AI is capable but whether they’ll have access to it at all.
4. Human behavior and incentives drive innovation.
Humans are remarkably adaptable, and when faced with constraints, they often innovate unexpectedly. Incentives play a huge role in shaping outcomes. As Charlie Munger said, “Show me the incentive, and I’ll show you the outcome.”
AI will likely follow a similar pattern. While it will undoubtedly disrupt many roles, it will also create opportunities—especially if the right incentives encourage humans to collaborate with AI instead of competing against it.
I have some more thoughts. I will write them later.
I agree with your conclusion that implementation is key (it is everything) and that AI's success hinges on its ability to navigate the complexities of the real world. Your examples of autonomous vehicles and healthcare AI perfectly illustrate this point. It's easy to get caught up in the hype, but true value lies in consistent, reliable real-world performance.
However, with respect to the potential for a "hybrid model" where humans and AI collaborate, this will be a middle road case and then I believe the extent of human involvement might be less than anticipated. As AI systems become more sophisticated, they may be able to handle tasks that currently seem to require uniquely human skills like creativity, ethical judgment, and empathy.
Large US companies are directly responsible to shareholders, will IBM keep 10,000 people employed in eastern europe, or Citi Bank, 5000 people, in call centers and back offices when AI can do that job? There are 300,000 people in these roles and maybe 900,000 reliant on the ecosystem - these jobs will go and its still unknown what will replace them?
This is a small example but there are many others. What will happen when all shipping companies wake up to the fact that Google AI helped CMG improve routes, optimization and profitability to a huge extent - shipping as a global trade employees millions of people - this industry could see a 15% cull within a few years.
Concerning Charlie Minger -- Granted data center work will boost employment, as will clean energy transition... so there is future hope for jobs - I will write about this as a counterargument to the downside.
The original comment was written in the context of 2034 as a potential milestone when most jobs could face significant automation or replacement. However, it’s crucial to recognize that hybrid jobs combining human expertise with machine capabilities will persist as long as full automation remains technologically or economically infeasible. The timeline for complete automation will vary significantly across domains and subfields, influenced by technological complexity, societal acceptance, regulatory constraints, and economic incentives. While automation will undoubtedly reduce the workforce required for many professions over time, this process will not be uniform, predictable, or universally applicable.
Skilled Trades and the Limits of Robotics
Certain professions, such as plumbers, electricians, and similar skilled trades, will likely remain human-dominated for several decades. The resilience of these professions lies in the inherent limitations of current and foreseeable robotics technology:
- Dexterity and adaptability: Robotics struggles with the fine motor skills and nuanced problem-solving required in these fields. Skilled trades often demand precise, context-sensitive actions that machines cannot yet replicate.
- Unstructured environments: These professions frequently involve work in variable and unpredictable settings, such as homes, construction sites, and outdoor environments, which are challenging for robots to navigate autonomously.
- Cost-effectiveness: The expense of developing, manufacturing, and deploying robots capable of handling such complex and variable tasks often outweighs the benefits, making human labor the more practical choice for the foreseeable future.
Without breakthroughs in robotics—particularly in dexterity, adaptability, and economic efficiency—these professions will continue to rely on human expertise and remain resistant to automation.
The Risks of a Rushed Transition
If the adoption of automation is carried out hastily, driven primarily by the pursuit of profit for a select few organizations or individuals without consideration for societal well-being, it could lead to severe consequences, including:
- Civil unrest: Mass unemployment, coupled with inadequate safety nets or societal preparation, could spark widespread protests, dissatisfaction, and social instability.
- Sabotage and resistance: Individuals or groups whose livelihoods are threatened by automation may actively resist or sabotage systems, slowing progress and creating stakeholder conflict. Here is an example: https://tinyurl.com/489fj3zb
- Geopolitical conflicts: Poorly managed automation could exacerbate economic inequality and instability, leading to tensions and conflicts between nations or societal groups.
While technology can potentially improve the quality of life for everyone, a careless or exploitative approach risks creating widespread harm; managing this transition responsibly requires thoughtful planning and policies prioritizing fairness, equity, and long-term societal well-being over short-term profits.
The Inevitable Nature of Technological Progress
History has repeatedly shown that once a technology demonstrates clear advantages, its adoption may be delayed but cannot be stopped. Resistance can slow the pace of change, but ultimately, technological progress is inevitable. The challenge lies in managing the transition effectively—ensuring that the benefits of automation are widely shared while minimizing its risks. This includes implementing policies that mitigate negative impacts, provide equitable access to technological advancements, and support those most affected by job displacement.
Work as Identity and Purpose
The assumption that universal basic income (UBI) and retraining programs alone can address the challenges of automation-induced unemployment is a dangerous oversimplification. Work is not just a means of earning a living—it is a cornerstone of the population's identity, purpose, and motivation. For many—perhaps 30-40%—their profession is deeply intertwined with their sense of self-worth, societal recognition, and daily structure.
Professions such as doctors, engineers, lawyers, scientists, and other skilled roles are often tied to identity and purpose. The loss of these roles cannot simply be compensated with financial security or retraining for a new career, especially if the new profession is perceived as less meaningful or lacks the same intellectual challenge and prestige. The psychological consequences of removing such identities can lead to feelings of emptiness, disconnection, and existential crisis, as work often provides individuals with a sense of value and contribution to society.
While UBI may address financial needs, it fails to replace intrinsic motivation from meaningful work—contributing to society, achieving tangible goals, and being valued for one’s unique skills. Similarly, retraining programs have inherent limitations. Not everyone can or wants to transition into a new field, particularly if that field does not align with their skills, passions, or sense of identity. For example, retraining a displaced scientist to work in a service industry role or an engineer to shift into a creative field may not provide the same fulfillment or sense of purpose.
The transition to widespread automation is not just an economic or technological challenge but a societal and psychological one. Work is deeply embedded in human identity, and its loss cannot be addressed solely through financial compensation or retraining programs. To ensure a smooth and equitable transition, society must adopt a holistic approach considering human well-being's intangible but critical aspects: identity, purpose, and motivation.
You're absolutely right about the persistence of hybrid jobs. While automation will reshape the workforce, it won't eliminate many professions entirely. Skilled trades, for example, will likely remain human-dominated due to the limitations of current robotics technology as you said.
You are precise on most points. A rushed transition, driven solely by profit motives, could have severe consequences, including social unrest and geopolitical instability.
Managing this transition responsibly is crucial. We need policies that prioritize fairness, equity, and long-term well-being. This includes addressing the psychological impact of job displacement, as work plays a significant role in our identity and purpose. This will be a tough one!
Ultimately, the future is inevitable, but we can shape how it unfolds. By being proactive and thoughtful, we can ensure a smoother and more equitable transition for everyone. I like these discussions and know that they will lead to something.
The following is the reason why I read almost anything, as most great ideas come from outside of my field:
I’ve been reading a book about how to have a successful retirement, and it made me reflect on the growing challenges people face when it comes to identity and purpose—especially with AI and automation increasingly taking away jobs. It’s easy to see how someone’s sense of self and meaning can feel lost when their work, which has often defined them for so long, is no longer part of their daily life.
This reminds me of retirees, who often face a similar identity and purpose challenge when they leave their careers. My grandfather and father are two inspiring examples of navigating this transition successfully. Both had long and meaningful careers, yet they could redefine themselves in retirement. My grandfather thrived for 41 years after retiring, and my father has already been retired for over 20 years.
What’s remarkable is how they carried the habits, mindset, and adaptability from their working years into this new chapter of life. Instead of letting retirement strip away their identity or purpose, they embraced it as an opportunity to grow and find new meaning. Whether through hobbies, relationships, or contributing to their family, they found ways to stay engaged and fulfilled.
Their experiences hold valuable lessons for today’s world, where the rise of AI is forcing many people to rethink their roles and sense of purpose. Just like retirees, those impacted by job loss or career uncertainty can find ways to redefine themselves by focusing on what truly matters—personal growth, lifelong learning, or finding new ways to contribute to society.
My grandfather and father have shown me that purpose isn’t tied to a job title; it’s something we can create and recreate, no matter the stage of life or the challenges we face.
Your grandfather and father sound like incredible role models! It's true that retirement, and even job displacement due to AI, can force us to confront questions of identity and purpose. But as your family members demonstrate, it can also be an opportunity for reinvention and growth.
We do need to cultivate adaptability and a specific mindset throughout our working years, as these are invaluable assets when navigating any transitions. Your grandfather and father actively sought new avenues for engagement and fulfillment, proving that purpose isn't confined to a job title.
The big question for me that people should think about, is not job title, but challenge, to have hobbies, interests, activities that stretch you and as you say "personal growth, lifelong learning, or finding new ways to contribute to society". I see family members wilt away because they do not have those challenges, they become pawns to the TV screens.
This is why I mentioned 'play and art' in my recent post - these other activities can be where we find true fulfillment.
As I said a few times in the last 24 hours, we cannot ignore the human factor. Ignoring or undermining it will create a situation we may be unable to handle.
Two quotes for you:
1. “Desperate men are easy to inspire but difficult to reassure.” — Barry S. Strauss
2. “Desperate men do desperate things when you take hope away.” — Chuck Hagel
Very relevant quotes. Thank you
My friend and I still continue the discussion on this topic. Here is out most recent conclusion about silicon valley and VCs:
"Systems improve significantly when decision-makers have skin in the game—that is, when they are directly impacted by the outcomes of their decisions. Without personal risk, people are more likely to make reckless or thoughtless choices that negatively affect others, often prioritizing their own short-term gains over long-term stability or fairness. When decision-makers are shielded from the consequences of their actions, it creates imbalances and fosters irresponsibility. For any system to maintain integrity and fairness, those who make decisions must also face the consequences of their choices. This accountability ensures that decisions are made with greater care, empathy, and alignment with the interests of those affected."
I wrote about changes that we need around how we educate today in a note and also referred to our above discussion:
https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/liberal-arts-will-save-the-world/comment/87115781
That is an excellent comment - Education is broken. I despair at many universities, the droll dished out, when we are meant to be preparing young people to think and for the workplace, is dire.. it is fractured to say the least. I agree with you wholeheartedly about the liberal arts and have a post about to go live on that.
For me, the Purpose of Education at the Highest Level:
1. Expose Students to Diverse Perspectives
Education should teach students a wide range of ideas, including those we may believe to be incorrect. This enables them to critically evaluate, analyze, and differentiate between what is right and wrong. True understanding arises from engaging with differing viewpoints, fostering intellectual independence, and building critical thinking skills.
2. Emphasize the Journey, Not Just the Outcome
Education should not stop at presenting final conclusions, such as Newton's laws or scientific breakthroughs. Instead, it must illuminate the process—highlighting the failures, mistakes, and moments of ignorance that preceded success. This teaches students that progress is rarely linear and that perseverance, curiosity, and resilience are integral to achievement.
3. Equip Students with Tools for Thought
Education must empower students not only with the ability to think critically ("how to think") but also with the discernment to focus on meaningful questions and ideas ("what to think"). This balance ensures they are both independent thinkers and grounded in a sense of purpose, capable of navigating the complexities of the world.
As expected, we are building dependency:
The findings revealed a significant negative correlation between frequent AI tool usage and critical thinking abilities, mediated by increased cognitive offloading. Younger participants exhibited higher dependence on AI tools and lower critical thinking scores compared to older participants. Furthermore, higher educational attainment was associated with better critical thinking skills, regardless of AI usage. These results highlight the potential cognitive costs of AI tool reliance, emphasising the need for educational strategies that promote critical engagement with AI technologies.
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/15/1/6
Interesting post. I will have to think on how to be less mediocre, how to transcend being merely average.
With that said, I question whether any educational system could be designed that equips most (or even a large minority) of people to adapt to AI. The last few decades have seen repeated refrains for better education as a solution to labour market dislocation. Do you remember when newspapers were talking about teaching miners or truckers to code? At least for older workers, I’ve seen very little in the way of encouraging evidence that would suggest reskilling is possible. And even for younger workers the prospects seem somewhat gloomy. Sure, if one is within say the top 5-10% of intellectual ability and conscientiousness then education might work (though I think even this might is too generous a threshold). But for everybody else? I don’t know. I worry for myself in this regard because I doubt I’d cross the minimum threshold.
Thank you Sam. It is a dilemma for sure. I believe all of us have what it takes to find something that drives us. I remember having a discussion with an MIT physicist once and she told me, the most important thing is to pick something and stick with it and do it to the best of your ability, at some stage you will get bored and want to quit, but persevere and you will become the best in 'your world' at that thing. I agree with her, based on experience and nurturing many students to try to find their 'thing.'
As for the education system, its broken wherever we look! Marginal Gains has some good comments above.
Reskilling, again comes down to appetite, is it something we want to do? Drive is essential, then good teachers, mentors, colleagues and so on - lots of pieces need to come together. Some truckers may make it as coders, but without motivated truckers and motivated teachers, who care for the students - it will not happen, generally that is how our systems in the West fail, it is about incentives.
In my 60s now and still feel I will throw myself at what I want to learn!
I wonder where Alexander got this number from "Estimates suggest that AI will create up to 50 million new jobs and provide up to $15.7 trillion of global economic output by 2030." I respect him a lot but data annotators is not exactly a sonderful, long term job. https://scale.com/blog/win-the-ai-war
Thank you for this analysis, very helpful. Now on to thinking of how to stop being so damn mediocre...
Oh - I am sure you are anything but mediocre
Haha kind words!!!
I think the future will be a bit like in the 1976 film "Logan's Run". There will be those who live in 'The System' with everything provided in the perfect city -- and there will be those outside scraping a living in the wild periphery. Bit like today, really. Just extrapolate the essence of what we already have, and technology will amplify and embed existing power structures.
Are there any signs it might be different? Wise elders stepping up into power-positions government, perhaps? Examples of restraint and humility by the rich & famous? Social unrest being taken as sign to 'talk to the people', rather than taser them? I'm looking for signs of hope. I don't see much. Meanwhile where I live, we build community, do exchanges without money, and learn to be self-reliant. It might not be the answer, but a remnant needs to survive at least.
It is important to always have hope. I still very much believe in human ingenuity. Community is essential, and agreed non financial trade and trust is a cornerstone of wealth. Just not the wealth we think of. It is the long term I worry about, the future for my daughter.
The elite have always been the power brokers, and too many of us on the treadmill, this is why I am keen to raise awareness and maybe we can manage a different society at some point - but as I have written before too many would prefer to go to a gladiator contest than have deep dialogue and work the fields, build a home, develop relations.
I'm glad you mentioned the word trust. Ever since I heard the words "Trust is the new currency" (from Satish Kumar or someone at the Schumacher College) I have been on some kind of road to experience and cultivate this vital 'trust' in human relations.