Humans Vs Machines:

A Review of Andy Chan’s Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Work

In his TEDx talk titled “Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Work,” Andy Chan defines
Artificial Intelligence (AI) as “the ability for computers to learn, see and communicate like
humans.” This simple definition drives his entire presentation, as he sets out to show the
various ways in which his claim can be validated within the context of human-machine
interaction. Chan builds his study around the emergence of three unexpected trio: Gamers,
Hipsters and Angels. The trio, for him, have over the years aided in the collection of data, its
storage and computation in myriad ways that maximized AI’s potentials and interference with
the world. Through AI algorithms, certain medical diagnosis such as diabetic retinopathy has
taken place using lesser amount of time than any human trained doctor could do. AI
algorithms have also led to the reduction of accident-related cases through self-driven cars
(autonomous cars), and many other significant AI related contributions to humanity. With
this positive background in mind, can we then say that the glorious future is here?

Interestingly, every promise of breakthrough technology also comes looming with threats of
widespread unemployment and joblessness. This structural unemployment or transition of
jobs from the real world to the virtual world, or world of machines seems to create a tension
between humans and their creation. How then, do we even differentiate ourselves (humans)
from our Silicon counterparts in terms of being and becoming? For Chan, this can only be
done in three ways: curiosity, communication and empathy. Artificial intelligence as efficient
as it is, would not explore new dimensions beyond the parameters set for it by its determinant
algorithms. AI does not look for new problems, or solutions to problems beyond its designs.
It cannot search for short cuts or navigations that points to a whole new level of reality
outside of its programming abilities.

For these reasons, AI would surely need a human moderator to place things in contexts and in
proper perspective. As good as the corollary of AI is to humanity, I strongly think that it
should only be employed as a supporting system or first-hand aid to humans, and not to be
seen as a replacement or substitute. It should be considered at best, only as an auxiliary. How
would you feel, if you are left to be operated upon solely by machines without any human
medical personnel to oversee or guide the proceedings, while also monitoring the process for
possible irregularities? Certainly, the experience would not be very palatable. Given this fact,
I am of the opinion that we cannot totally place human lives in the hands of machines
because machines do not have empathy, compassion and conscience. They do not have
capacity for moral judgement or decisions when faced with multiple ethical dilemmas in the
course of any kind of operation. Machines (AI) cannot be ethically responsible for their
actions or inactions, hence the need for an arbiter or a human agent (as responsible
moderator).

In conclusion, in a world where humans have to struggle with AI in the economic, medical,
socio-political and cultural workforce, I strongly think that only a healthy collaboration
between humans and Artificial Intelligence is essential for significant outputs. There is no
doubt what AI can achieve independently, but for the safety and preservation of human lives,
we still need humans to think or create new problem-solving dimensions to life’s most
pressing questions in ways that show empathy and compassion. Artificial intelligence, must
be deployed only as an ambulance-service agency where human efficiency is limited. It ought
not to replace human intelligence or be placed at par with humans in the context of
superiority and inferiority.