Expert: Robust safety nets vital for fair AI transition

Robust social safety nets are essential for navigating the current technological transition and ensuring a fair distribution of benefits, according to Oxford University professor Carl Benedikt Frey. Speaking at the fifth annual Hankyoreh Human and Digital Forum in Seoul, Frey cautioned against a "technology trap", a scenario where advancements primarily benefit a select few, leading to widespread public opposition that hinders further innovation.

“

Because of the time needed for the benefits of technological change to reach ordinary workers, he stressed, the future of work will hinge on how well the transitional period is managed through a robust social safety net.

Frey, a leading voice on the future of employment and automation, emphasized that while technological progress can create short-term unemployment, historical patterns show it often takes decades for the advantages to trickle down to average workers. This delay can paradoxically lead to falling wages for low earners even as labor productivity increases significantly.

He pointed to the Industrial Revolution and the late 20th-century computer revolution as examples where the gains from automation disproportionately benefited investors and highly skilled workers, rather than the broader labor force. Frey suggested that when the benefits of new technology are not equally distributed and the transition period is poorly managed, it can incite resistance, citing the historical example of the Luddites.

“

The “technology trap” that Frey warned of is a situation where technology ends up mostly benefiting a minority, which leads to widespread popular resistance that ultimately becomes an obstacle to innovation.

Furthermore, Frey distinguished between different types of technology. He observed that "labor-replacing" technologies, which substitute machinery for human workers, tend to increase hardship. In contrast, "labor-enabling" or supplementary technologies, which enhance worker capabilities and productivity, have historically improved quality of life and wages. While cautious about the potential downsides, Frey avoided outright pessimism, stressing that proactive management and equitable distribution are key to harnessing technology for societal good.

“

examples of “labor-replacing” technology, in other words, technology that works to substitute existing workers with machinery, have tended to increase hardship for workers, while quality of life has improved for workers in cases of “labor-enabling” or supplementary technology, where worker capabilities are enhanced in ways that increase both productivity and wages simultaneously.