@paulbo9033
A professor who effectively cannot be fired, who will enjoy a decent pension, and has limited (if any) experience in an actual company, telling you not to worry about Ai because she thinks it's like the internet. No wonder ppl cant stand academics anymore. I can tell you two things about my iwn experience with rolling out Ai at work: 1. We are actively firing ppl because of it and those jobs arent coming back in my biz or anywhere else. 2. It's not the firings you need to worry about, it's the jobs we no longer need to create. You will have an entire generation languishing without being able to get a well paid job, ever.
@imature-dot-in
Would be eager to know from the Professor, if she could list 5 examples of the new kind of jobs AI will create. The ones which are being replaced or change, we are quite aware about.
@MrAndrew535
One of the most prestigious institutions on the planet, and this is the best it can produce, total oblivion to reality.
@primi22
This woman has no idea
@nitinmittal213
Madam understood everything but did not understand that all the tech we need is already there. The problem is social not technological. Even if we have practically free unlimited energy, humans will find a way to screw things up.
@ProfoundFamiliarity
In some instances, companies won't get rid of jobs. They'll get rid of people. I'll explain: AI doesn't need to be able to do an entire person's job. It just needs to be able to do 5% of 20 people's jobs, and then the company will get rid of a person and redistribute the remaining tasks between the remaining 19 people. In this way, a person's job might be vulnerable to AI even if AI can only perform a small number of the tasks for which that person is responsible.
@Adrian-Wright
I'm sorry, but I disagree. You stated the problem yourself: "It changes the nature of the job, sometimes profoundly." The problem is that the first candidate for the new changed job will always be AI and only those tasks that AI resolutely cannot do will be left for humans. But whilst it will be economically imperative that most people be employed, most employers will say "How many of my employees can I get rid of?" - all whilst decrying the lack of spending power in the economy.
@shusseina
Excellent thought provoking commentary. A+
@jakerankine2228
Saying an email and a letter are completely different things basically sums up this video. Cuz they are literally the same thing, just with automation.
@RamiroGil-Serrate
Thank you very much Professor Judy Wajcman for these wise words!! The future will be whatever we want it to be…
@diegohernandez8743
University professors often find themselves distanced from everyday reality, occupying privileged positions within a hierarchical academic structure. They represent the pinnacle of the scientific world, projecting an image of unquestionable wisdom, while enjoying economic stability, good pensions, and a comfortable standard of living. This position makes it easier for them to defend the status quo. However, artificial intelligence is radically transforming various sectors, including politics, medicine, and the sciences themselves. Currently, there are AI agent prototypes capable of generating academic publications with high levels of reliability and creativity, even designing replicable experiments. This technological reality could significantly redefine the traditional employment landscape in these fields.
@peterjol
It doesn't matter how many robots or automatic machines there are or what people invent, humans will NEVER get to enjoying their lives working any less until it is made financially worthwhile for people to share jobs.
@TheWeaselsApprentice
a). I think there is a lack of understanding of the capabilities AI agents will have b). The problem isn't job "replacement" it's job reduction. Where before a job took say 10 people to do, it will now take 7. In a year or two it will take 5, couple more years, 3. And then it may stop there. You can't create more jobs because those new companies will mainly create automated roles. How quickly can the reduction in available roles be replaced but unautomated jobs? Bit worrying that someone of this nature can provide comment on something they clearly don't understand fully
@RaghavKumar-hr8nv
this woman is completely delusional. Earlier technologies required humans to operate them. Now the machines can operate themselves with much higher efficiency, productivity, accuracy and cheaply. Any remaining drawbacks will be ironed out within the next 5 yrs. For analogy, assume that playing chess was a real 9-5 job. Would any company hire a human for that? The same is going to happen to all the cognitive tasks first and then to the physical ones.
@rohan.fernando
There’s a MASSIVE difference between the ‘wishful thinking’ of this academic professor, and actual extremely dynamic changes to the world that are being created by AI compression law.
@nijos2025
Great video! Thank you
@Brain4Brain
This video will age very badly in a few months
@franksu3420
in orchards, we can grow trees like fences, so a robot can pick oranges or apples more efficiently, I mean, when the job from ground up can be reorganized to suit mechanics ,human workers will have no jobs .
@LucaCrisciOfficial
Actually we don't need job, what se actually need Is the "results" of our job. If a machine can make it instead of us It means that we can have the same things, working less, dedicating our time to more important things for example
@martynhaggerty2294