To the Editor:
Re “America Cannot Withstand the Coming Economic Shock,” by Gina Raimondo (Opinion guest essay, March 9), and “Your Job Could Be in Jeopardy Already,” by Michael Steinberger (Opinion guest essay, March 8):
Both of these writers discuss the shocks coming for workers and the economy from the rapid evolution and deployment of artificial intelligence platforms.
A.I.’s staunchest defenders would have us believe there is little to worry about because we’ve seen all this before and it worked out, most recently when computers and automation ended many factory jobs as we shifted to an information economy. In those past transitions, most workers successfully retrained for new and different kinds of work.
It’s different this time for three reasons. First, change is coming spectacularly quickly. Many of this year’s college freshmen are in majors that will be obsolete by the time they graduate. Second, many of the smartest people — even those in the A.I. field — are already wary about where this technology is headed and how it could be used, especially by bad actors. And third, there is a difference in the kinds of jobs that are being eliminated.
Previous technology shifts displaced millions of workers who were typists, telephone operators, assembly-line workers and bookkeepers, where the skills were learned quickly and required modest investments in education and training. The work and careers A.I. will eliminate in management, programming, law, medicine, health care, engineering, the arts and other fields often require significant investments in advanced education. Many in those roles are paying off student loans that will not go away when their jobs disappear.
All indications are that this time the great displacement will be bigger and much faster, and it’s becoming clear that we are not prepared.
Jay P. Maille Pleasanton, Calif.
To the Editor:
Gina Raimondo’s essay points out that artificial intelligence will replace a lot of human labor, while assuming that we need to find replacement jobs to keep those workers toiling away.
Perhaps we should be exploring how to reorganize society in ways that equally distribute the benefits of those massive productivity gains. Is it impossible to imagine a work force made up of people who toil for only 35, 30 or even 25 hours per week so they have more time to devote to family or to noneconomic activities?
We are not that far removed from a time when the working class had jobs that demanded six 14-hour days each week and offered few holidays and only rare vacations. Somehow we transitioned to a shorter workweek and guaranteed vacations, and our standard of living rose dramatically.
Perhaps we would be better served by imagining a world in which members of the working class have more time for their own lives.
Dale E. Tozier Portland, Ore.
To the Editor:
Gina Raimondo’s proposal for a “new grand bargain between the public and private sectors” is a master class in practical leadership.
As we build this new partnership, we must ensure that it includes the essential tools of traditional education. The study of the humanities — including English, history, sociology and philosophy — provides the skills of critical thinking and judgment that will be just as necessary to help workers navigate the complexities of job retraining.
These skills will not only help these workers become engaged and knowledgeable citizens; they will be indispensable as they adapt and move into the future world economy.
Carol A. Stolte John F. Stolte Phoenix
To the Editor:
When politicians like Gina Raimondo promote work force training as a solution to the A.I. takeover of jobs, I both cheer our community colleges already on top of this and fear for the souls of our students — and the arts.
How many artists spend years in the trenches until they finally sell a work for what it’s worth? Even apprentices in some trades rarely make a living wage for years. Is their work less worthwhile because they don’t meet some made-up timeline for success?
Wages fluctuate, and so should standards for what makes people “qualify” for earnings that make their education worth funding. I am reminded of “Brave New World,” in which Aldous Huxley saw the castes divided between the Alphas (elite, handsome, intelligent) and the Deltas, Epsilons and Gammas, mass-produced semiliterate laborers.
How do you measure whose work is worthy?
Darrah Cloud Pine Plains, N.Y. The writer is a member of the board of trustees at Dutchess Community College in Poughkeepsie, N.Y.
Shoes and the Trump Man
To the Editor:
Re “If the Shoe Doesn’t Fit, They Wear It Anyway” (Thursday Styles, March 19):
True, there is a noticeable gap at the back of the shoes of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy — shoes presented to them by President Trump.
But the problem isn’t that the shoes are too big. It’s that the men of Mr. Trump’s inner circle are too small to fill the shoes of the vice presidents and cabinet secretaries who have gone before them.
Norm Tabler Carmel, Ind.
The post Bracing for the A.I. Economy to Come appeared first on New York Times.
