2017-6-13 The rise of the algorithm need not be bad news for humans

SignIn Subscribe

AIandjobs

Theriseofthealgorithmneednotbebadnewsforhumans
Therewillbeworkforustodotakingcareofthedigitalenvironment
LucianoFloridi

MAY4,2017by:LucianoFloridi

The science and technology committee of the House of Commons published the responses to its inquiry on
algorithms in decision-making on April 26. They vary in length, detail and approach, but share one
important feature the belief that human intervention may be unavoidable, indeed welcome, when it comes
to trusting algorithmic decisions.
Automation has already transformed agriculture and industry. Today, brown and blue collars are in a
minority. About 80 per cent of US jobs are in services. Most of us deal with data and software in our working
lives, not with bioware or hardware. The trouble is that computers eat data and software for breakfast. The
digital revolution is now threatening white-collar jobs.
This is not because digital makes technology intelligent, but because it makes tasks stupid in other
words, no intelligence is required to perform them successfully. Once this happens, algorithms can step in
and replace us.
The consequence may be widespread unemployment today, but could also mean new jobs tomorrow.
Unemployment in the eurozone is still above 9 per cent, for example. Yet in Germany, the demand for
engineers is higher than the supply. The same holds true in the UK. And according to the World Bank, by
2030 the world will need 80m healthcare workers, double that in 2013.
In a society in which algorithms and other automated processes are increasingly apparent, the important
question, addressed by the select committee, is the extent to which we can trust such brainless technologies,
which are regularly taking decisions instead of us.

https://www.ft.com/content/ac9e10ce-30b2-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a?mhq5j=e2 1/4
2017-6-13 The rise of the algorithm need not be bad news for humans

Now that white-collar jobs are being replaced, we may all be at the mercy of algorithmic errors an unfair
attribution of responsibility, say, or some other Kafkaesque computer-generated disaster. The best protection
against such misfires is to put human intelligence back into the equation.
Trust depends on delivery, transparency and accountability. You trust your doctor, for instance, if they do
what they are supposed to do, if you can see what they are doing and if they take responsibility in the event of
things go wrong. The same holds true for algorithms. We trust them when it is clear what they are designed to
deliver, when it is transparent whether or not they are delivering it, and, finally, when someone is accountable
or at least morally responsible, if not legally liable if things go wrong.
This is where humans come in. First, to design the right sorts of algorithms and so to minimise risk.
Second, since even the best algorithm can sometimes go wrong, or be fed the wrong data or in some other
way misused, we need to ensure that not all decisions are left to brainless machines. Third, while some crucial
decisions may indeed be too complex for any human to cope with, we should nevertheless oversee and
manage such decision-making processes. And fourth, the fact that a decision is taken by an algorithm is not
grounds for disregarding the insight and understanding that only humans can bring when things go awry.
In short, we need a system of design, control, transparency and accountability overseen by humans. And
this need not mean spurning the help provided by digital technologies. After all, while a computer may play
chess better than a human, a human in tandem with a computer is unbeatable.
The responses to the select committee inquiry are clearly good news. They show that there is plenty of
intelligent work for humans to do in the future. But it wont be white-collar workers filling these new
positions. It will be experts who can take care of the new digital environment and its artificial agents.
Algorithms are the new herd. Our future jobs will be in the shepherding industry. The age of green collars is
coming.
ThewriterisprofessorofphilosophyandethicsofinformationattheUniversityofOxford

Print a single copy of this article for personal use. Contact us if you wish to print more to distribute to others. The
FinancialTimesLtd.

Readlatest

TheExchangeAlexanderStubb
Whydemocraciesshouldcarewhocodesthealgorithms

LatestonAIandjobs

TheExchangeAlexanderStubb
Whydemocraciesshouldcarewho
codesthealgorithms
Arepoliticiansandlegislatorspreparedforthedigital
revolution?

ManagingYourself
Podcast:LucyKellawayonworkskillsforthe21stcentury

https://www.ft.com/content/ac9e10ce-30b2-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a?mhq5j=e2 2/4