James Manyika

So you reduce the denominator.

That can lead to productivity, but it's of the vicious kind, right?

Because you're not expanding the output.

It's simply reducing the inputs or the labor inputs.

Therefore, you end up with less employment, fewer jobs, and that's not great.

And that's when you get what you asked about, which is where you need less labor.

And that's the vicious version of productivity.

You don't want that either.

Well, first of all, we shouldn't assume that AI is simply going to replace work.

I think we should think about this in this context of what you might call complements and substitutes.

So if our AI technology is developed and then deployed in a way that is entirely substitutive of work,

then you could have work decline.

But there's also other ways to deploy AI technology where it's complementary and complements work.

And in that case, you shouldn't have to think about as much about losing jobs.

So let me give you some specifics on this.

We've done research and others have too, but let me describe at least what we've done.

But I think the general consensus is emerging that is close to what it is we found in our research, which is that, so we looked at, so the Bureau of Labor Statistics kind of tracks in the US, tracks roughly 800 plus occupations.

We looked at all those occupations in the economy.

We also looked at the actual particular tasks and activities that people actually do.

This is because any of our jobs and occupations are not monolithic.