This post is from an essay I wrote last year when I was confronted with the hype around generative AI. I made some guesses about what the future might hold if machine intelligence lives up to the hype. I attempt to imagine a future where artificial intelligence replaces human creative labor, make guesses about its effects by drawing parallels with the second industrial revolution, and offer my suggestions on how to deal with the changes as a creative worker.

AIndustrial Revolution

Those who use AI to get creative work done: This is a warning!
For at least five years, many have entertained the idea of the Internet of Things (IoT) bringing about the Fourth Industrial Revolution for developed countries. While this has yet to happen, recent advances in generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) make me wonder how it would look if it were to be the next revolution.

In February 2023, David Rivers wrote an article titled “The Struggle is Real,” investigating the problematic nature of AI in entertainment and art. He wrote about how the creative process is more than just having an idea and seeing it realized: it’s hard work, and this is what gives creation value and meaning. This article inspired me to think about how using AI would affect my work as an (electronics) engineer and how it would affect anyone whose job is to create intellectual property.

The current state of IP mass production is akin to hand manufacturing after the first industrial revolution. There are lots of specialized workers in massive offices (assembly lines), with many working on the same product in a waterfall manner. The output products are somewhat serialized (although the appearance of innovation is important): just look at the differences between the same manufacturer’s sequentially released smartphones, computer parts, cars, movies, TV series, etc. These are all optimized for development time and cost to achieve an aggressive time-to-market delay, while entire departments are dedicated to selling this surplus of products. My guess is that once these industries learn how to harness generative AIs, they’ll start to phase out humans in favor of machines and their operators—just as they did in the second industrial revolution. The output quality and “waste” produced won’t matter as long as the increase in quantity makes up for it in terms of profit.

The number of laborers needed to operate an AI-driven IP factory is a lot less than in a conventional office. Even though creative industries are considered a growing field, switching to AI en masse would probably see more or less all of these workers laid off, depending on the field, just like factory workers during the second industrial revolution. Even though IP creation requires high fluid intelligence, retraining to become an AI operator might not be an option for everyone. And what if not all engineers, artists, writers, journalists, and other creative workers are satisfied with instructing an AI and correcting its mistakes for the rest of their careers?

A more conservative worker might refuse the idea of outsourcing work to something as unpredictable as an AI. I’m sure the traditional jobs won’t completely go away, just like there’s still a market for handmade consumer products and bio/locally grown food is enjoyed by many — but these are exceptions, and whoever makes them is exceptionally skilled. If you are working in IP production and are fine with being an AI operator, then be prepared so that you can make the switch when you need to. If you aren’t fine with this, strive to be exceptionally skilled. Compare your work against the best AI tools and specialize in fields that require high accountability and top-notch quality.

But for the rest, who aren’t creative workers, what would the AIndustrial revolution bring about? Apart from the social effects of an unemployment spike and the initial decrease in the quality of IPs (which should improve over time), previous industrial revolutions had a common side effect along with the main welfare effect: pollution. Operating large AI farms would undoubtedly increase environmental pollution (due to their high energy requirements), but we are prepared for that (to some extent). Pollution in areas we can’t predict is what I’m more concerned with. An example could be the pollution of intellectual products.

AI designs are sometimes so alien to human designs that we can’t fully comprehend them. And how can we distinguish a good design from a bad one if it doesn’t follow the usual conventions (which is often an explicit goal when making effective AIs)? How can we repair (not to mention repurpose) something that is a black box even to its creator? Lazy and irresponsible handling of AI design can even lead to a flawed design being released and manufactured, and the lack of understanding of the design doesn’t help either. And worst of all, it might even be financially worth it compared to a suite of specialists perfecting the same design for many, many hours. In conclusion: if you are producing IPs, be prepared when the AI companies come for your job. And even if you aren’t this type of worker, be aware of the dangers of an AI-designed product and proceed with caution. We were probably wrong to think machines would take over manual labor first.

Hindsight After a Year

I might have been overly optimistic about the abilities of the AI tools. In this last year, they have shown no improvement at all, but their limitations are starting to show. However, I’m also starting to see more and more obviously AI-generated billboard graphics, where the fact that they were accepted is somewhat disturbing. I still hold my final conclusions, but the AI takeover definitely won’t happen in the next ten years, and maybe never in my lifetime. I remain hostile to using AIs for generating content; however, for interpreting and correcting syntax, I’m willing to try them out.