The point of the story is that we’re paying for the expert advice that was cultivated over many years. But, when it comes to AI, in the long run, aren’t we trying to outsource and automate expertise?
The AI agenda seems to be building machines that can access much more data in order to arrive at “better” insights while also making the process more efficient with automated decision-making. This is the underlying narrative that organizations buy into when these technologies are deployed. Right now, there is still a lot of room left for humans to “be belgium whatsapp number data in the loop,” have oversight, and exert their hard-won professional skills. Yet, the AI dream is that someday, no human skill will be necessary. It will all be automated. In the meantime, automation tends to abstract away more of the skilled work. Think about the move from craftsmanship to manufacturing products on an assembly line and the deskilling of the workforce.
We’re left with the lower value knob turning parts of the work that cannot be easily outsourced to automation because they involve someone showing up. Clients might even choose to cut out the middleman and do their own knob turning, so to speak, assuming they can gain access to the AI “expertise” of knowing which knob to turn.
To be clear, I don’t believe AI actually has any expertise. Rather, I think it will create convincing or good enough substitutions that simulate professional expert work products. consultant’s slide deck, the lawyer’s contract, or an ad agency’s marketing campaign. This is the tangible component of the expert’s recommendation. The core knowledge work deliverable is typically some kind of content. Most of this stuff isn’t all that innovative, but it’s good enough. It meets the basic needs.