The predictions about artificial intelligence (AI) are at best hyperbolic and dark. Experts have indicated a “wipeout” of white collar jobs, an upcoming “bloodbath” for the American workforce and software that is able to adopt entire industries.
The fortificable forecasts should cause clicks-and of course. But are these prophecies helpful to make well -founded decisions about how we use AI, especially at our workplaces? That is questionable.
We have to take over the increasingly bad AI headlines with a grain of salt or a whole shake. Otherwise, concern about the potential of technology, good and bad, short -sighted financial decisions and investments could cause itself. The collective corporate shift in the introduction of AI with almost task and on a large cost-cost-our workforce without a steady pipeline made of trained, capable employees and future managing directors.
AI is not new. Technologies such as computer vision, machine learning, processing of natural language and neural networks have existed for decades. It is generative AI that has attracted our attention and has recently become a trend if it has not become the hottest issues.
And it's no wonder. AI-operated tools offer a specific value for employees and companies, automation of tasks and the improvement of efficiency. But before American jobs go down the AI rabbit hole and have to get back to the hype of the blockchain and now the following NFTS, we have to remember that the technology is not a magical ball. It shouldn't be either.
Whether a small company or a Fortune 500 company, organizations work on structured management levels. Do we harm our ability to build the next generation of future managers and business entities by using AI at the site of the entry employees? Perhaps.
A current example is financial institutions that try to replace junior analyst roles with AI-powered forecasting tools. The current school of thinking is that these technologies could occupy some entry positions. The companies that have previously hired these employees are hopeful that they will achieve cost savings in advance and reduce their salary bills in advance, but will they cost them indirectly later?
Organizations must check whether they have to appear again if or when the promises of the AI-powered solutions do not go out. In a recently carried out IBM report, it says: “Three of four AI initiatives do not deliver their promised ROI [return on investment]. “Companies that choose AI can be forced to assign their processes for restoration, retraining and potentially revised resources to remedy the gaps left by AI.
In the case of financial institutions, the question can be: “Without a development pipeline from junior analysts with institutional knowledge, who will be the future financial director or the Chief Financial Officer?”
Regardless of the sector, companies will always need skillful, experienced specialists to take over their managing roles. The wearer in the workplace makes it impossible for us to hire and train young adults.
It is human nature to wave a magic wand, and the attractiveness of a user -friendly, accessible technology is easy to understand. However, it is important to remember that AI has limits. Companies should not make a penny-like, pound-due decisions by expecting the technology to meet all of our challenges in the workplace.
Conclusion? Workers and companies should not panic about AI. Avoid the fear tactics and use the technology intelligently, strategically and safe.
Chris Wright is a co-founder and partner of Sullivan Wright Technologies, a company based in Arkansa, which offers tailor-made cyber security, IT and security compliance services.