The widespread anxiety surrounding AI is so intense that even seasoned Microsoft researchers are experiencing panic attacks, fearing their own obsolescence. This phenomenon is vividly illustrated by Ira Glass, host of the NPR show 'This American Life,' who, despite his lack of computer science expertise, organized an episode in 2024 titled 'Unprepared for what has already happened.' The phrase, coined by science journalist Alex Steffen, captures the unsettling realization that one's expertise and experience may become obsolete or less valuable due to the rapid advancements in AI.
This concern is not limited to the general public; it resonates with highly educated professionals across various fields. During workshops in law firms, government agencies, and nonprofit organizations, I consistently hear this worry. Accomplished individuals question their future in an economy where generative AI can swiftly and cost-effectively complete tasks currently performed by numerous paid workers.
The panic experienced by Chris Brockett, a veteran Microsoft researcher, exemplifies this anxiety. When he encountered an AI program capable of performing tasks he had dedicated decades to mastering, he was rushed to the hospital, believing he was having a heart attack. The thought of his entire skill set becoming irrelevant due to software was overwhelming.
MIT physicist Max Tegmark expresses a similar anxiety in his 2018 book, 'Life 3.0: Being Human in the Age of Artificial Intelligence.' He wonders if the continuous improvement of technology will eventually eclipse the abilities that define his sense of self-worth and value in the job market.
The rapid pace of AI development is evident in the increasing number of AI-related products and advancements unveiled daily, a stark contrast to the situation a decade ago. Even Dario Amodei, co-founder and CEO of Anthropic, the company behind the popular chatbot Claude, has been shaken by the capabilities of AI tools. He reflects on his coding experiences, realizing that AI systems can outperform him in various tasks.
However, labor economist David Autor argues that individuals have more agency over their future than they might realize. In a 2024 interview, he suggests that AI, if managed well, can enhance decision-making tasks, benefiting a broader range of people. This shift could improve job quality for non-college graduates, reduce earnings inequality, and lower the cost of essential services like healthcare, education, and legal expertise.
Autor's perspective is encouraging, emphasizing that the future is a 'design problem' rather than a 'prediction exercise.' He believes that the quality of the future depends on the investments and structures we create today. This perspective is particularly relevant for law students and lawyers who worry about their job prospects in the AI era.
Despite the initial scientific paper on neural networks being published in 1943, we are still in the early stages of generative AI. This means that individuals are not hopelessly behind or commandingly ahead; instead, they are at the starting line, with ample time to take deliberate actions and adapt to the changing landscape.
