What is REALLY happening with AI and jobs

75% of women who seek menopause care don't receive it. The lying awake at 3 a.m., wondering what's happening to your body ends now. MIDI is virtual care built for women in perimenopause and menopause, with clinicians who specialize in women's health. Plus, it's covered by most major insurances. Getting started is easy. You can book your first visit with a clinician right away. Midlife needs MIDI. Visit joinmidi.com to book your first visit today. That's join M-I-D-I dot com. Insurance coverage varies. Check with your plan for coverage. Acast powers the world's best podcasts. Here's a show that we recommend. If you've ever dreamed of quitting your job to take your side hustle full time, listen up. This is Nakeila Matthews-Akome, host of Side Hustle Pro, a podcast that helps you build and grow from passion project to profitable business. Every week, you'll hear from guests just like you who wanted to start a business on the side. If you can't run a side hustle, you can't run a business. They share real tips. And so I started connecting with all these people on LinkedIn, and I saw Target supplier diversity was having office hours. Real advice. Procrastination is the easiest form of resistance. And the actual strategies they use to turn their side hustle into their main hustle. Getting back in touch with your tangible cash and sitting down and learning to give your money a job, like, it changes something. Check out Side Hustle Pro every week on your favorite podcast app and YouTube. Acast helps creators launch, grow, and monetize their podcasts everywhere. Acast.com. This is Eat Sleep Work Repeat. It's a podcast about workplace culture. Hello, I'm Bruce Daisley. There's been so much chatter about AI and work over the last few months that it becomes overwhelming. You don't know whether it's worth covering on a weekly basis or if it's just adding to the news, the confusion and the chaos around the debate. One of the people I've been most informed about, in my own opinions, is Daniel Susskind. Daniel Susskind is a research professor. He's done a series of lectures over the last 12 months at Gresham College, talking about the way that our relationship with our jobs is going to change. He wrote a book, A World Without Work, in 2022. He's written a brand new book, What Should My Children Do?, helping us try to interpret what's happening and what's going on. His new book, as you can guess from the title, tries to imagine what advice we would give to young children coming into the workplace. But actually, his perspective extends beyond children. And so today's conversation is a reflection with him on where we are with AI and work right now, how much is noise, how much is real, where do we think this is going to go. One of the themes you're going to get from it is the fact that, in truth, no one knows anything. One of the predictions that you might have made 10 years ago is that to future-proof your job, you needed to learn code. Pretty much that's been the exemplar of how to make a decision, a prediction badly. Learning code is probably the single least future-proof job that you could have chosen to do right now, and it serves as a sort of graphic illustration of how we get these things wrong. So we're going to have a discussion about where work is right now, what's happening to our jobs, how can any of us interpret this, and sort of future planning, really. If we were thinking about our own skills and our children's skills, what would we do next? One of the things I mentioned along the way is the revised version of the AI 2027 predictions by Daniel Kokotajlo. Daniel Kokotajlo and some collaborators have updated the timelines that he originally put on those predictions. There's a link to that in the show notes. You can go and check it out, as well as links to Daniel's lectures and his book. Interesting, stimulating, provocative debate about where we are right now. And if you're seeking to be informed about what's happening next with work and our jobs, this is a good place to start. Here's my discussion with Daniel Susskind. Daniel, thank you so much for joining me. I wonder if, to kick off, you could just introduce who you are and what you do. Sure. So my name is Daniel Susskind. I'm a writer and an economist. I'm the current professor of business at Gresham College, and I've spent the last 10 or 15 years really trying to make sense of the impact of technology, and particularly artificial intelligence, on work and society. And my most recent book, and in some ways what it feels like much of my work has been building up to, is this new book, What Should My Children Do? How to Flourish in the Age of AI. I want to sort of try and take in all of those things. So over the course of the last 12 months, at Gresham you've been doing a series, I think you've done three lectures of sort of public lectures talking about AI. You might have done more, correct me if I'm wrong, but I've shared those along the way as really sort of thoughtful contributions to the debate about what our jobs will look like in the future, what will our jobs look like pretty much in the present. And so, you know, to sort of hit you with a very broad opening question, what do you see the state of play of AI and our jobs looking like? Are we about to be replaced? So my view, and it has been the view for some time, is that the main challenge we face in the world of work is not that there aren't going to be enough jobs. You know, for now, I think the main challenge is that there are jobs, but for various reasons, people might not be able to do them. And so I spend a lot of my time at the moment thinking about how we can prepare the next generation. For these jobs that are going to have to be done. That said, I do think, though, as you push further into the 21st century, and if you take seriously some of the claims of the large AI companies at the moment that within five to ten years we might build systems that can outperform human beings at all economically useful tasks that they do, then you have to take seriously other possibilities where the challenge might change from being one where there are jobs, but for various reasons, to one where there aren't enough jobs to be done, full stop. Again, I don't think that's the challenge for now, but I think the consequences for how we work and live together in society would be so significant that even if you think it's very unlikely, it still should be demanding more of our attention than it does today. As I said, though, that's not the main focus of my work at the moment. What was really struck by was that, I guess, as long as 15, 20 years ago, Ken Robinson, educator, was talking about the education system wasn't fit for purpose. Specifically, he was talking at the time about bringing more creativity, bringing more sort of expanding thought into kids' education. Conclusion is something different here, and there was one bit I was particularly taken by, which you said, AGI should require us to shift the focus of education away from building workplace competence towards cultivating personal character, from what people know in their heads to who they are as a person. And that strikes me as incredibly necessary, but wow, like such a formidable task that the education system will try and instill, I guess, pillars of character inside people. How would you seek to do that? I suppose the basic challenge here, which is what this new book is all about, is just the— Extraordinary uncertainty that we face about the future. It is very hard to predict what jobs are going to have to be done, and it is very difficult to anticipate, as a result, exactly which advanced skills are going to be most valuable and important. Yet almost every day we hear stories of systems and machines taking on tasks that, you know, until recently we thought only human beings alone could do. Tasks that require, as Ken Robinson is saying, creativity. Tasks that require judgment. Tasks even that require empathy. The idea that we can anticipate exactly which advanced skills are somehow out of reach of automation, I just don't think we can do it any longer. You know, the age of AI that we're entering into is more than anything an age of uncertainty. And so, for me, what I think is the question we've got to be answering is not how do we think more cleverly and deeply about the future than we have before and try and peer further into the crystal ball than others might have done, but instead, how do we take that uncertainty as given, and how do we prepare the next generation to flourish in a future that actually we know very little about? You know, we really only know two things about it. One is that it'll be full of technologies that are more capable than those that exist today, and two, we actually don't know much else. And that feels quite sort of dispiriting and quite uninspiring and worrying, but actually I think there's a huge amount that we can do. So, you know, one thing, for instance, and this rubs up against perhaps the Ken Robinson idea, is actually rather than try and predict which advanced skills are going to be important—creativity, judgment, empathy—instead, I think we've got to get back to basics. I think we've got to focus again in education on things like literacy, numeracy, and critical thinking, because, you know, however the future turns out, and whatever advanced skills do turn out to matter, we know that those basics are going to be crucial. You know, they're basic not only in the sense that they're the simplest, but they're also the building blocks, the foundations for all other skills that you might develop later in life. You know, you can't be a creative person if you're an illiterate, innumerate, or uncritical thinker. You know, you need those basics in place. And the spirit of, you know, one theme of the book is, let's stop trying to predict those advanced skills. Let's focus instead on getting back to basics. But the reason the shift from, I think, what I call competence to character becomes important is because, you know, we don't at the moment face a world with AGI, a world where systems can outperform us at all economically useful tasks that we do. Far from it. But, you know, what would the consequence of that be for how we live and work together? Again, you know, it's just so extraordinarily uncertain. That's the spirit of that observation, which is that if we are heading towards a world with these extraordinarily capable technologies, focusing far more on the sort of person that you are and the character that you have as you move through this increasingly uncertain, ever-changing, thrilling, but also unsettling world becomes more and more important, it seems to me. And trying to predict what particular competencies are going to be most valuable and important seems to me to just be a more and more difficult task. So, you know, again, I don't think that shift from competence to character is a shift necessarily for now. I think there are more, you know, more straightforward things that we can do right now to prepare the next generation, which we can all agree upon. But I do think, again, as you peer further into the 21st century, you do have to take some of these other ideas more seriously. And one of them is the shift from competence to character. In the short term, what do you think organizations should be doing then? So you raise that thing that actually we've been incredibly bad at predicting. And a decade ago, as recently as a decade ago, probably as recently as five years ago, if we'd have asked anyone how to prepare for the future, then learn to code was the— Right, that's exactly right. With the sort of the suggestion that, you know, the suggestion, well, if you learn to code, there was organisations who trained executives how to understand, to see the world in code. And it felt like the one way to future-proof your own self was to add that capability. Well, it's proved just about to be the least valuable, other than sort of teaching you the discipline of thinking, but it's proved to be a bad prediction. And I guess that's the reason why you say no one knows anything, that these predictions in themselves have no value. Is that why your view is you've got to sort of teach both the framework of the future and the best of the old traditional methods? You've got to have a foot in both camps because no one really does know. Yeah. So I think exactly as you're saying, the technological changes of the last few years are a death knell for the idea of future-proofing. We just can't do it. We just cannot predict what jobs are going to matter and what skills are going to be most valuable and important. And exactly as you say, I think coding is just the most sobering example. 2013, the then Prime Minister David Cameron says, you know, and it's radical, it's exciting, it's bold. Every child in primary and secondary schools up and down the country is going to learn to code. Michael Gove, then the Education Secretary, says these are the technical skills that the next generation need to flourish in the 21st century, or something along that. And, you know, they weren't alone. Exactly as you say, it was very hard in the years that followed to find a sort of advanced, progressive country that didn't embrace some form of teaching people to code as part of their AI strategy. So I think Finland, for instance, which is famed for its educational prowess, dropped long division from their national curriculum in order to make way for coding. And as you say, you're exactly right that it also seeped into the corporate setting too. This was thought to be something that not just young people, but people later on in their career needed to learn to do in order to flourish. Now, I'm labouring the punchline because everyone knows it, which is that in 2023, what does it turn out that these generative systems are particularly good at doing? Not just quite good at doing, but what they're best at doing: writing code. So it turned out that a set of skills that were meant to last the next generation, you know, really for the rest of their lives, barely lasted until they left school. And I don't think this was a case of bad luck. I think it is an example of how just incredibly difficult it is to anticipate what advanced skills are going to be most valuable and important. And so one thing that I say is, look, what we've got to do is get back to basics and, you know, again, literacy, numeracy, and critical thinking. But we've also got to teach people to use these technologies, and I think this is incredibly important. You know, if there is anything we know about the future, it is that our lives are going to be saturated with technologies that are vastly more capable than those that exist today. And just to give you a ballpark for the sort of ambition that I think we ought to have in mind, I really do think we ought to be spending about a third of our time now—primary, secondary, university, professional settings—training people to use these technologies. I mean, there's two things to say, though. One is that it's not enough just to teach people to use them. We've also got to teach them to use it critically. You know, these systems are not perfect. They hallucinate. They make mistakes. They exhibit biases. And if we are simply passive recipients or passive users of these technologies, taking what they tell us at face value, we're going to, you know, find ourselves embarrassed time and again. Now, you can see this, you know, consulting firms publishing, you know, decks with made-up case studies of businesses that don't exist. Lawyers relying on hallucinated cases for their, you know, legal reasoning. I saw a newspaper which published a list of books to read this summer where some of the books didn't actually exist. You know, it's an example of people using the technology but not using it critically. The computer scientist Geoffrey Hinton has this great phrase where he says that AI today is an idiot savant. You know, it is extraordinarily savantic in the sense that it is capable of just complete genius. And we've seen in the last few weeks, particularly in mathematics, the way that these systems just seem to be steamrolling through many of the frontier problems in mathematics. Most recently, the Navier-Stokes problem, one of the Millennium Prize problems, which if you solve it, you get a million dollars. Extraordinary. But at the same time, only a few months ago, this same system wouldn't have been able to count the number of Rs in the word strawberry. You know, and so there's a really important task that falls to us to, you know, engage with these systems critically. And so that, I think, is again, you know, one of the really important things, particularly in the corporate setting, to make proper use of these technologies. I suppose there's another big challenge, and this is perhaps more for the educational system than corporate setting, but I think it's still important too, which is, look, Daniel, you've said you want to nurture the basics, but you've also said you want people to use AI. Aren't those two things in conflict? Aren't you going to undermine the basics by encouraging people to use AI? You know, why would you bother learning to do a difficult calculation if ChatGPT can do it for you in a few seconds? Why, you know, take the time to learn the discipline of sitting with a difficult book if Claude can answer any question you have under the sun? You know, there is a fear today, and I think it's a legitimate one, that the way we are currently using these technologies risks making us stupid, and I think that is a real risk. So, you know, again, another big practical challenge for us is, well, how do we teach people to really use these technologies without also undermining the basics? How do we teach them to flourish with AI and also to cope without it? It begs a really interesting question about sort of where education should start and finish, and exactly, you've talked, you know, what should our children learn about how the education system can deal with this? But for the next two decades, the majority of the AI usage that's going to happen in work is not going to be by these new recruits joining the workforce and then gradually by osmosis sort of changing our approach, but it's by the installed base, it's the people who are already doing jobs. There's a really interesting example in Ethan Mollick's book where he talked about recruiters, and he talked about recruiters who were now gifted the ability to use AI tools. And what worked in aggregate is that even though the ability to filter between candidates to find better matches was Generationally, way more powerful than any previous group of recruiters had ever done. It actually made the job less satisfying. It made the experience for candidates worse. And actually, in aggregate, because there'd been no sort of plan about how to do these things upfront, actually everyone ended up poorer: the candidates, the recruiters, everyone ended up worse off. And it sort of posed a really interesting question that, you know, there's one thing educating children about how you'll be able to do these things in the future, but I guess there's another system of education that needs to be done that needs to be educating bosses, workers, people right now how to apply this rapidly evolving technology in the jobs that they're already doing. Yeah, I think that's right. And when I say it's a really interesting example, the recruitment one, in a sense what you have is a more efficient system that leaves everyone feeling less well off, as you say. And again, I'd come back to this phrase which I find myself using again and again, which is, we've got to use AI critically. And that means not simply in the sense of, you know, that it hallucinates, exhibits biases, that it makes things up, and we've got to always take things at face value, but also in this deeper sense, which is that it's not always going to be the case that more AI is necessarily better in all the dimensions that you're talking about. And there is, at the moment, in the rush to adopt and use AI, precisely the kind of unfortunate consequences that you're talking about. I am sure there is another path where we find a way to use these technologies and improve the recruitment system that doesn't leave everyone feeling less well off. It's just at the moment, in this kind of very rush to use this extraordinary technology that's changing all the time, in a feeling that will be left behind if you don't, that we're not being critical enough in how we use it. When you're looking at the messaging that comes to us right now, and there's so much noise about AI, you know, for a lot of people, they have this sort of dissonance where their only experience of AI right now is Copilot at work that pretty much fails to do most of the things they ask it to do. And yet they see the turn on the evening news to be told that robot overlords will probably be seizing power within the fortnight. And so they're confronted with this contradiction where they're like, you know, it can't even take notes, minute notes properly for the meetings I'm in. When you're looking at that, do you look at it thinking—the other thing that I felt was that, you know, you might read something like AI 2027, which was the Daniel Kokotajlo predictions of where AI is going to be, and it describes human life being snuffed out by the end of the decade. And actually, a lot of the predictions in that, the Kokotajlo predictions, if you go and you look at them, and I think he's tracking them on his website, they're largely on track for what he originally said. But, you know, we find ourselves thinking that we're hearing messages that suggest that AI is all-powerful, and yet we don't necessarily see it, so it makes it even more difficult to accept, to take on board. What's your personal perspective on that? Yeah, I mean, lots of views on this. I mean, dissonance is such a good word. It's exactly right, which is a sense that we feel pulled in two very opposite directions. And, I mean, in a sense, it's not surprising that this technology has both a promise, or as you put it, a sort of perceived promise, and also a tremendous price. You know, almost every great technology of the last century has had this, you know, two-faced nature to it. Nuclear is the great example, right? On the one hand, you have nuclear weapons, a catastrophic thing. On the other hand, you have nuclear energy and the promise of resolving environmental challenges. And, you know... The challenge for us, again and again, has been how do we contain, mitigate the risks, take advantage of the benefits? And we've done quite a good job of that with nuclear. Let's see what happens with AI. I mean, one observation I would make about AI, though, is—and again, I've been working in this field for the last 10 or 15 years, and I've seen various waves of kind of cascades of excitement and optimism and disappointment and disillusion. And I think the challenge for all of us is to try and not get too distracted by the sort of the ripples on the surface, and instead to try and understand the kind of deeper currents that are unfolding. And for me, stepping back and trying to see those deeper currents, it's one where these technologies are gradually but pretty relentlessly becoming more capable. Yes, there are disappointments and frustrations. I often think of my late grandfather, who had a bad experience with Skype in sort of 2009 or something with me, and for him that was the end of video conferencing. It was just never—it was, you know, we've got to try and step back and see the bigger picture, that we're only really in the foothills. I mean, on the question of the last 10 days or so, the particular concerns around subexistential risk, I mean, again, I don't think it's surprising that there is a price to these technologies. It's also not a new claim. These individuals have been making these claims for the last decade or so. And indeed, if you go back to the history of AI, you can see people worrying in the very beginning, in the '50s, '60s, '70s, about similar concerns. I think the idea of putting a 10% human extinction is completely absurd. But that said, I don't think the risk is zero. There are scenarios in which things go wrong. And I think it is a good thing that there are rooms of people who are now paying attention to these big challenges. But I also think it's good there are rooms of people who are thinking about the more prosaic, everyday concerns of how to get Copilot to work well. Or I find myself again— And again and again, talking, particularly in the last two weeks, people come up and say, Look, that's all very interesting about superintelligence and recursive self-improvement and intelligence explosions, but should my daughter use ChatGPT to do her homework? Or, you know, I'm a teacher. How should I be using Claude in the classroom? And I think, you know, for some time we are just going to have to sit with, just to use that word you're using, that dissonance, that sense of, Oh my gosh, you know, promise, oh my gosh, price. You know, is the promise quite what we think? Is the price quite... But that is the nature of a moment of, you know, technological change. There's something that you're very evidently an AI fan or an AI experimenter. You know, you talk a lot about sort of using AI with your children, using it sort of to create bedtime stories. One of the things that I wonder is if that model is actually the model, the model of using AI with other people seems to be like the best practice right now, rather than using it alone. We see examples of college students using AI as their own private confidant, and the end result of that is it serves to disconnect them from their peers, the normal cut and thrust of sort of debating how to use the internet or how to find certain places. Those trivial conversations that actually serve to provide this sort of social ligaments between each other, they're disappearing. And like all of the bad examples you've given about AI earlier, about lawyers using it or people, journalists using it, probably would have been solved had it been in conjunction with another human being, had it been seen. Yeah. And it's just really interesting, actually, that having the sort of the nascent experience that we use AI as a voice in the room, but alongside other people seems to be a good use of it. And it's just interesting. We're not, I don't think we're even having the discussions about the best way to get the most from this technology. I'd be interested in your take, because your examples are always really good examples of where you've sat with someone, and I suspect when you've got it to tell you a child's story, you could demonstrate to the child, Ah, well, here's what's wrong about that. Here's why we want to change that. Yeah, yeah, interesting. I mean, I should say the book is quite different from other books that I've written in that it is full of stories, because I wanted to... I wanted to try and bring this technology down to earth and just show what it actually could look like in practice. And I think, quite, it is full of stories of me, you know, using it with my kids or indeed using it myself. There was one word you used, which was fan, always reluctant. And this is something my dad, in fact, who also has worked in artificial intelligence, he says, you've got to avoid treating AI like a football team, where you feel like you have to take a side. You're an optimist or a pessimist. And again, to your dissonance point, and I think it's completely right, which is you've got to recognize both sides of this technology. And I mean, one of the things I've been quite interested in is people who have read the book have often said, although on balance, I think I am a fan, it is, I think it is balanced in the sense that there are in there, you know, particular risks and concerns that I'm preoccupied with. I mean, the main one for me, the social connection one that you're describing, Bruce, is really interesting. For me, the kind of bigger one is around distraction, that these technologies are just going to be extraordinarily good at grasping the attention, particularly of young people, and not letting it go. And so I spend quite a lot of time thinking about how we might, you know, teach people to avoid distraction by these technologies. I think that's a really important discipline. But isn't it interesting as well, though, how you're describing, you know, there are, it's very hard at the moment to find precedents. You know, you asking the question, do you think it's better to do it with other people or to do it alone? It is remarkable how much of the, how many of the case studies and the examples and stories of using this technology well in practice are sort of bubbling up from the bottom. The number of, you know, we hear from a friend or a colleague or, you know, we read an article about a particular use, which is really, which is really interesting. There's not yet a kind of instruction manual for us to make sense of this technology. I write at the end of the book, yeah, and partly, you know, in the context of these conversations about pausing. causing AI, that even if we were to press pause, I think there's a real sense in which we've barely begun to scratch the surface of what these technologies are already capable of doing. And it feels to me like the main bottleneck on their use in education, in the workplace, is our imagination. It's our capacity to come up with, you know, new uses for these technologies. And so, you know, the sort of mindset that I think people ought to have with respect to it is one of experimentation and imagination, just trying, seeing what works, seeing what doesn't, because there's a lot for us to explore. The social connection point is, I mean, and it's an implicit assumption throughout the book, which is that I think if it's kids, it's really valuable to have an adult there alongside using this technology. Sort of take that for granted. Almost every case study, I think, in the book that I use is me sitting with my children. That's well noted. Yeah, a couple of things on what you said there. It's why I think we're not even using the technology well yet is why I really love—I follow Ethan Mollick's posts and his sort of occasional posts—and sometimes he uses the technology in quite dazzling ways. He used it the other day to ask the, I think it was GPT-6, to recreate the library of Umberto Eco, I think, based on known videos and photographs of his library. 50,000 books, isn't it, or something ridiculous? Yeah, to create a model of it. And I went and I scrolled along and you can see which books have been—look, just as a use of technology, it's such a lateral thinking approach to demonstrating how here's something you could do. Or he used another text, I think a book, Create Me a role-playing game of this scene in a book. Amazing, dazzling, and just demonstrates for you that actually the only limitations right now are your own thought and application. On the social side, this is why this is such an important moment for, I think, for work, for where we get meaning, because there's no doubt whatsoever, if you follow Mark Zuckerberg's vision of the future, that AI is going to provide—is going to fill the friendship gap that you have in your life, that you would like six more friends, AI is going to provide them. But actually, I think that from what we know about social science, that's creating an impoverished version of life, the absence of real human beings and using AI substitutes for human beings. I think he's only going to be sort of like switching food for fuel and sort of drinking powdered nutrients. It's not going to provide the true organic nourishment that we need. And so it's just an interesting challenge at the moment, really. A lot of people, they say the use of therapy, the biggest therapist in the world, I think, is AI right now. And, you know, actually that might seem superficially beneficial because we've got a sympathetic voice to hear us. Actually, it might be, with the consequence that we end up even more disconnected from each other. Yeah, I mean, and I feel this particularly strongly with young people. And one of the things that I write about is we've got, in the context of distraction, we've got to be on the lookout for these sort of attention black holes, where these systems are particularly good at drawing in, you know, young people and not letting them go. And I think one of them is this emerging market for, you know, friendship bots and friendship, yeah, toys that... Yeah, I think that is something that we need to keep a very, very careful eye on, because I share your concern there. The therapist example that I use is just to, again, I suppose I'm just making this point around future-proofing, which is that over the last 10 or 15 years, I spent lots of time with people in the medical profession, and many of them will have said to me, Look, Daniel, the core of what I do is an interpersonal communication. And for that reason, yeah, we're out of reach of automation. And, yeah, therapists said that most loudly and confidently, and yet it's turned out that it's one of the most popular uses. And I suppose what I'm wanting to do is just to get people to think about what it really is that people value in the work that they do. Now, it's clear to me that in some cases, it really is the personal interaction that matters. You know, however good a system gets at muttering the right things into someone's ear at the end of their life, it will probably matter to us that it's a flesh... It will probably matter to us that it's a flesh-and-blood hand sitting there holding our hand, listening to our, you know, worries and apprehension. However good these systems get at personalizing tuition, I'm very excited about the promise of using these systems to personalize education now in a way that we haven't been able to do. It might matter to that point about character before that it's a human teacher standing at the front of the room teaching the next generation how to move through this uncertain world with a particular set of virtues or character. But it also seems clear to me that there are areas of our working life where people overestimate the importance of empathy. So I was once talking to a group of accountants, and at one point a particularly boisterous accountant stood up and said, Look, Daniel, you don't understand. The reason my clients come to me is because they want the personal touch, right? They want to look me in the eye. They want the, you know, the empathetic hand on the shoulder. And I said to them, That isn't why your clients come to you. They come to you, and I said it more delicately than this, but they come to you because they want their taxes done efficiently and effectively. And if they can find a more efficient way of doing that, then they may choose that rather than coming to you. It's more of a challenge to, and particularly white-collar professionals, to just ask, What is it that their clients, their patients, their students, the recipients of their work really value and care about? Sometimes it is the personal interaction, but other times actually it turns out that that was just the traditional way in which we solved a problem, and we've got to not confuse that traditional way in which we solved the problem with the problem itself. And that, I think, is the challenge for many white-collar professionals today. Again, it's not to say that empathy and personal interaction is incredibly important, and it's not something we ought not to be paying very careful attention to in the coming years, but— It's just a sort of provocation for professionals to think carefully about what it is that people value in their work. We're coming to the end. You've made a very strong case that humans have been pretty wretched at predicting what's coming next, and certainly if you extend that to even just the medium term of 10 years, most of us just aren't equipped to make these predictions. However, if you were being crystal ball gazing, think that we're going to reach a stage where minimum basic income is just a prerequisite for all rich economies? Is that going to be something that we have to do? And if that is the case, how do we separate, how do we prevent a caste system developing where until now our jobs have been the means for social elevation and for us breaking out of our birth becoming the determinant of our death? I'd love your sort of your brief perspective on one of the biggest questions facing society. Yeah. So I don't think that is the challenge we face now. Yeah, just to come back to the beginning, I think for now the challenge is there is work, but for various reasons people can't do that work. I do think, though, as you look further into the 21st century, you need to take other scenarios seriously. And in a world where there is not enough work for people to do, you face a whole set of challenges, one of which is the economic challenge: how do you share our income in society if your traditional way of doing so, paying people for the work that they do, is less effective than in the past? And I can see why something like a basic income is an appealing response to that distribution problem, because it provides everyone with an income independent of whether or not they have work. Sort of solves the economic problem. I think there's two big problems with it, two things that it leaves out. One is, and we've spoken a little bit about this, which is that it's often said that work isn't simply a source of income, but it's also a source of meaning and purpose. And if that's right, while a basic income might do a good job of solving the income, the distribution problem, giving everyone an income, it doesn't engage with the relationship between work and meaning. And if you think that, yeah, you might say, well, look, actually, the relationship between work and meaning, and, you know, there is some evidence for this, that yes, some people do get a lot of meaning from their work, but many other people would choose not to work if they could and get an income from elsewhere. And actually, there's a lot of difference. There's a difference among people in different countries, and certainly over time, if you go back to ancient Greece or Rome, you find very different relationships between work and meaning. So you might say, actually, I don't worry about that. A basic income gives people an income, and then they can find meaning and purpose outside of work. Or you might say, though, no, that's wrong. Work is an important source of meaning, and we need something that looks more like a job guarantee scheme. So that gives everyone an income, but they also have to do some kind of work as well. They have to have a job. And so I think, you know, there's an issue about meaning and the relationship between meaning and work. If you think that work and meaning are closely related, you're probably going to dislike the idea of a basic income and favour something more like a job guarantee. If, on the other hand, you think there isn't such a relationship and it's a historical accident that people get meaning and purpose from their work and freed up to find purpose elsewhere, they would, and so for that reason, a basic income is a good idea. So there's this issue around meaning, but there's also another issue with the universal basic income, which really... Which I think is really important, which is around not distribution, but contribution. You know, today social solidarity comes from a feeling that everybody is pulling their economic weight through the work that they're doing and the taxes that they're paying. And if they're not in work, and they're able to work, there's an expectation that they ought to actively look for work. The kind of universal basic income runs against that. It undermines that traditional sense of social solidarity. It means some people are paying into the collective pot and others are not. And so I think one of the big challenges is how you maintain social solidarity in a world where our traditional way of giving everyone a chance to contribute and to be seen by others to be contributing, namely through work, is no longer available. So I think, just to sort of summarize, universal basic income, I see the appeal of it in solving that distribution problem, giving everyone an income if they can't rely on the labor market. But there's a lot more thinking to be done on the relationship between work and meaning before you can embrace something like universal basic income. And in my view, it has very little to say about these issues of contribution rather than distribution, about how we give everyone in society a chance to contribute and to be seen by others to be contributing. This is the sort of conversation I think we ought to be having. And it's fun that, although, don't focus too much in my new book, What Should My Children Do? it's a big focus of my previous books, in particular World Without Work, where I spend a lot of time thinking about what the challenges are that we might face in a world with less work. Again, I don't think these scenarios are inevitable. But so long as you think they're plausible or possible, given the consequences for how we work and live together in society, they're so profound that we really have to start thinking about them now. And that's part of what I'm trying to get people to do. That's why I've loved hearing your voice giving the lectures over the course of the last 12 months. I've loved reading your other work, and I've really got huge value from this new book. So thank you so much. I'm really grateful for the time you've taken, and I appreciate everything you've done. Thank you so much, Bruce. Really appreciate it. Thank you. Most women have been there. Something feels off. You don't feel like yourself, yet your doctor says everything looks fine. Spoiler: it's your hormones. Midi is a virtual care platform built for women by women and offers specialized hormone care from trained clinicians. Plus, it's covered by most major insurances. Getting started is easy. You can book your first visit with a clinician right away. It's not you. It's your hormones. Visit joinmidi.com to book your first visit. That's join M-I-D-I dot com. Insurance coverage varies. Check with your plan for coverage. What makes a leader worth following? What should you really care about in your job as technology is changing so quickly? Is it just going to be about machines talking to other machines? I mean, should you quit your job and start something on your own? What would that take? What does success and risk look like when we're all at the starting gate together? These are the questions we answer each week on Lead Human with Jack Myers and Tim Spangler. Join us each week and subscribe at your favorite podcast platform and YouTube. We'll tell stories, we'll hear from some of the best, and we'll try to figure this out together. At QVC, shopping is more than just checking out. It's discovering something new every day. Start with today's special value. Then explore exciting finds across the brands and categories you love, from beauty and fashion to home, culinary, and outdoor living. Shop now at QVC.com. Thank you to Daniel Susskind. His book, What Should My Children Do?, is out now, and it's got a light, opinion-filled piece of, like, reflection on where we are and what's happening to us. If you're interested in this, the best place to go is the newsletter, and you can see a link to that in the show notes, and that's a regular digest of work, the future, how we're engaging with our jobs. I've been Bruce Daisley. Thank you for your company today. I'll see you next time. Acast powers the world's best podcasts. Here's a show that we recommend. If you've ever dreamed of quitting your job to take your side hustle full time, listen up. This is Nakeia Matthews-Acome, host of Side Hustle Pro, a podcast that helps you build and grow from passion project to profitable business. Every week, you'll hear from guests just like you who wanted to start a business on the side. If you can't run a side hustle, you can't run a business. They share real tips. And so I started connecting with all these people on LinkedIn, and I saw Target Supplier Diversity was having office hours. Real advice. Procrastination is the easiest form of resistance. And the actual strategies they use to turn their side hustle into their main hustle. Getting back in touch with your tangible cash and sitting down and learning to give your money a job, like, it changes something. Check out Side Hustle Pro every week on your favorite podcast app and YouTube. Acast helps creators launch, grow, and monetize their podcasts everywhere. Acast.com. At QVC, fall shopping is more than just checking out. It's discovering the brands you love across beauty, fashion, home, and culinary, all in one place. Whether you're getting ready for crisp mornings, cozy nights, or everyday moments, QVC has what you need for the season ahead, with brands like Laura Geller, Philosophy, Ninja, and so many more. Shop now at QVC.com. Acast powers the world's best podcasts. Here's a show we recommend. How do I recover from a friendship breakup? How come there's nowhere to hang out anymore? Why do I feel lonely when I can communicate with anyone and everyone through my phone? These are the questions that you're not alone in asking, and that's where our new podcast, Corner Piece, comes in to start small on life's biggest questions. I'm Taha, and with my friends Sabrina and Melissa, we're going to explore life's ungoogleable questions on this new podcast with TED. Come hang out with us on Corner Piece, with new episodes every other Thursday, wherever you get your podcasts. Acast helps creators launch, grow, and monetize their podcasts everywhere. Acast.com.