Despite dire predictions, researchers forecast that few industries will lose a substantial number of jobs due to artificial intelligence (AI). Instead, AI is more likely to alter the way humans work. The AI industry may also create new roles, but this may amplify inequality. In this third post in my Sociology of AI series, I explore the perceived impact of AI on jobs, and the stratification that may follow increased automation of the labour market. I analyse evolving policy directions, including a new report by Jobs and Skills Australia, on AI-related job losses. I then review sociological understandings of AI and work, and recent examples of job redundancies. I analyse a much-publicised study by Microsoft, which claims AI can replace 40 professions, including translators, historians, artists, and customer service workers. This case study shows that AI companies distort evidence to overstate the functions, utility, and accuracy of AI technology. I argue that AI discourse hinges on eliminating competition from human professionals. Sociology uncovers the ways in which scientific models and customer data are used to make unethical and spurious claims.
In this second post in my Sociology of AI series, I show that AI companies position automation as being superior to human labour. I review the Australian Government’s recent announcement that is considering changing the law to allow AI to mine copyrighted works. I will show that the economic model used to justify this decision lacks robust testing. I analyse the ways in which AI discourse is ‘manufacturing consent’ to control the labour market. I argue that AI discourse establishes economic power by marketing technological supremacy, using science selectively, eliminating competition, and suppressing issues that undermine AI domination.
I’m featured in the first episode of Making New Worlds, a podcast inviting experts from different fields to discuss the ethics of colonising other planets.
The issue we discuss is not about scientific space exploration (collecting data about other planets), but whether it is ethical for humans to settle in Mars or other planets. My responses represent sociological considerations about the inequality that is inherent in colonialism. The quotes below are excerpts from me; listen to the entire podcast in the link.
In Bangladesh, four million people work in textile factories. Their work accounts for 80% of their country’s annual exports. Yet they work in extremely dangerous conditions. It’s been a year since 1,100 workers died in two incidents of fire and structural collapse in April 2013. My post explores this tragedy through a sociological lens, looking at empirical studies of the local working conditions and social reality in which garment workers live. These tragedies are an ugly reminder of the unequal economic relations that sustain globalisation. One of the visceral Western response to these tragedies may be to cry for a boycott of these companies. Sociological research shows that the resolution is much less tidy. The story behind this is not simply about corporate greed. It is a tale about gender inequality and the social costs of economic mobility. Let’s start by remembering the 2013 tragedy.
Shiho Fukada’s Pulitzer Centre project on Japan’s “disposable workers” focuses on people who are precariously employed in casual and “dead end” jobs. They are underpaid, working long hours but without any of the benefits or sense of stability of full time employment. This affects people who are homeless as well as white collar workers who are driven to suicide due to mental and physical exhaustion. I see that Fukada’s photo essay offers an insightful visual critique of economic progress and the rapid increase of an “underclass” in one of the world’s most advanced societies. I argue that Fukada’s work might be understood through the sociological concept of anomie, a term that describes the social alienation that follows a society’s shift in morals and values. In this case, I explore how a cultural change in attitude means that workers are less valued in Japan, leading to socio-economic and mental health problems. I draw a comparison between the Japanese and the Australian workforce. I conclude by showing how sociologists seek to help governments, employers, developers and community organisations work together to better support a sustainable and ethical economic future.
Ever heard someone complaining about how people in management roles do not work as hard as those in less senior roles? Years ago, a friend told me that people are promoted to the highest level of their incompetence. This is otherwise known as the Peter Principle, Laurence Peter and Raymond Hull’s satirical view of organisations, as laid out in their 1969 book of the same name. Or as this comic explains, The Dilbert Principle, works just as well.
This 1969 Time Magazine review describes the Peter Principle through the theory of hierarchiology, which is the ‘the study of hierarchies in modern organisations’. The last tenet is: ‘Final Placement Syndrome… [or] what the ordinary sociologist calls “success”‘. Funny stuff.
The Peter Principle (PP) has longevity. The video below explains how this humorous principle has more serious applications for American governance. The PP is apparently relevant to the modern day business world and in management. It’s been used to critique the Former USA Federal Emergency Management Agency director Michael Brown’s handling of Hurricane Katrina. Physicists have created computational models to study the PP.
Though it was conceived as a satirical application of social scientific analysis over four decades ago, the Peter Principle continues to have useful resonance to serious critiques of organisational hierarchies. The PP simplifies bureaucracy, organisational structures and status in a way that Karl Marx, Max Weber, Talcott Parsons, Peter Blau and most other social stratification and organisational sociologists may object. Nevertheless, the PP offers an engaging starting point from which to begin unravelling public dissatisfaction – and misunderstanding – of organisational structures.
My opening anecdote was about my friend being frustrated over what they perceive is an unfair, non-merit-based system of promotions in their workplace. This frustration stems from a subjective perception about what knowledge, skills, experience and leadership traits should be rewarded. Subjective perceptions about what is fair, what makes a good leader, and what types of professional competencies are necessary in middle and upper management are going to vary from one organisation to the next, from one society to another, and in different points in time.
Satire and Sociology
The examples I provided about the PP being applied to governance, businesses, natural disaster responses and even computational models by physicists show that the PP provides a way to frame critical analyses of organisational hierarchies. In an earlier post, I reflected on Duncan Watts‘ point that sociologists need to show society our disciplinary strengths – one of which is that we are trained to go beyond ‘common sense’ understandings of the world. My argument was that sociologists still have a long way to go in showing the utility of sociology to wider publics. In the case of the PP, I’m all for starting off with satire and drilling in deeper.
I see that applied sociology is about making sociological insights useful in achieving practical outcomes for particular groups in society. I also believe that we need to do this in easy to understand language rather than relying on sociological jargon. Using comedy, satire and examples that people can relate to are all useful tools to this end. So I say: viva la PP!
The Other Sociologist 