Yet, when we look at the big numbers of the economy, this is not what\u2019s happening.<\/p>\n
Unemployment in the EU is at a historical low<\/a> of around 6%, half the level of ten years ago. In the UK, it is even lower, at 5.1%, roughly the level<\/a> of the booming early 2000s, and it is even lower again (4.4%<\/a>) in the US. <\/p>\n The reason why there are still so many jobs<\/a> is that while technology does make some human enterprise obsolete, it also creates new kinds of work to be done. <\/p>\n It\u2019s happened before. In 1800 for example, around a third of British<\/a> workers were farmers. Now the proportion working in agriculture is around 1%<\/a>. <\/p>\n The automation of agriculture allowed the country to be a leader in the industrial revolution<\/a>.<\/p>\n Or more recently, after the first ATM in the world<\/a> was unveiled by Barclays in London in 1967, there were fears that staff at high street bank branches would disappear. <\/p>\n The opposite turned out to be the case<\/a>. In the US, over the 30-year period of ATM growth, the number of bank tellers actually increased by 10%. ATMs made it cheaper to open bank branches (because they needed fewer tellers) and more communities gained access to financial services. <\/p>\n Only now, with a bank on every phone, is the number of high street bank staff in steep decline<\/a>.<\/p>\n An imposition?<\/p>\n But yes, AI will take away some jobs. A third of Americans worry they will lose theirs to AI<\/a>, and many of them will be right. <\/p>\n But since the industrial revolution, the world has seen a flow of innovations, sustaining an unprecedented exponential economic growth<\/a>. <\/p>\n AI, like the computer, the internet, the railways, or electric appliances, is a slow revolution<\/a>. It will gradually change habits, but in doing so, provide opportunities for new businesses to emerge. <\/p>\n And just as there has been no immediate AI boom when it comes to economic growth<\/a>, there is no immediate shift in employment. What we see instead are largely firms using AI as an excuse<\/a> for standard job cutting exercises. This then leads to a different question about how AI will change how meaningful our jobs are and how much money we earn. <\/p>\n With technology, it can go either way. <\/p>\n Bank tellers became more valuable with the arrival of ATMs because instead of just counting money, they could offer advice. And in 2016, Geoff Hinton, a major figure in the development of of AI, recommended that the world<\/a> \u201cshould stop training radiologists\u201d because robots were getting better than humans at analysing images. <\/p>\n Ten years later, demand for radiologists in the US is at a record high<\/a>. Using AI to analyse images has made the job more valuable, not less, because radiologists can treat more patients (most of whom probably want to deal with a human)<\/p>\n So as a worker, what you want to find is a job where the machines make you more productive \u2013 not one where you become a servant to the machines.<\/p>\n Working together. Any inequality?<\/p>\n Another question raised by AI is whether it will reduce or increase the inequality between workers. <\/p>\n At first, many thought that allowing everyone to access an AI assistant with skills in processing information or clear communication would decrease earning inequality<\/a>. But other recent research found the opposite<\/a>, with highly skilled entrepreneurs gaining the most from having access to AI support. <\/p>\n![\"Fist](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/file-20260120-56-aii6p0.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\n Summit Art Creations\/Shutterstock<\/a><\/p>\n