首页 500强 活动 榜单 商业 科技 商潮 专题 品牌中心
杂志订阅

“图灵陷阱”正在变成“人才陷阱”:错误的AI战略可能让数百万技术工人陷入困境

如果说“图灵陷阱”代表一种错误的工程视角,那么与之对应且同样具有破坏性的,就是“人才陷阱”。

文本设置
小号
默认
大号
Plus(0条)

2017年2月1日,英国曼彻斯特,位于“同志村”萨克维尔公园的艾伦·图灵雕像。图片来源:Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

当下,围绕人工智能对经济、社会乃至人类生存影响的争论日益激烈。然而,这场喧嚣背后潜藏着一种更深层的失控感——许多讨论被简化为“AI能做什么?”这种被动思维暗示,决定AI对工作影响的是技术本身,而非人类自身。在轻信这些危险的“自我实现预言”之前,科技界、商界和社会各界的领导者,以及我们每一个普通人,都必须认清前方的双重陷阱,方能精准避坑。

2022年,埃里克·布林约尔松教授提出并命名了“图灵陷阱”,即盲目把AI的目标设为模仿人类,以期用机器取代人力,而非构建能补充并拓展人类能力的系统。

如果说“图灵陷阱”代表一种错误的工程视角,那么与之对应且同样具有破坏性的,就是“人才陷阱”——一种广泛存在、却有着根本缺陷的用工观。按照“人才陷阱”的思维方式,社会人才总量是固定的,人才主要由学校培养,并以学历来衡量;企业胜出的关键是争夺这批有限的人才,而非广泛培育新血。这种思维把一部分人视为值得争取、培养和发展的“人才”;把另一部分人仅看作“劳动力”,认为后者只需嵌入他人设计好的固定流程,无需拥有自主判断的空间。

“人才陷阱”世界观,把劳动者视为能力固定不变的静态存在,而非持续进化的“在职学习者”。因此,随着AI在越来越多认知任务上达到新基准,这些任务乃至于相应岗位都会随之消失,把人类推向更多体力密集型工作,或仅催生出极少数拥有新兴领域高级学位者才能胜任的新岗位。这种思维还把让劳动者适应AI经济的重担,一股脑压在学校、高校和正规再培训项目身上。

然而,那些可能让我们陷入AI“人才陷阱”的观念根本站不住脚。劳动者的潜力并非固定不变,大多数学习都发生在正规教育体系之外;而与工作相关的技能,往往形成于与他人和工具协作解决客户、公司或社区实际问题的过程中。

高等教育当然至关重要,但对雇主而言,最重要的人才来源其实是美国每年1,000万名劳动者,他们凭借在工作中积累的技能,转向薪酬更高且需求旺盛的岗位。这个人才群体的规模,是应届大学毕业生的五倍。这些向上流动的劳动者中,有一半属于“通过非传统途径获得技能”(Skilled Through Alternative Routes,简称STARs),没有大学学位。而且,他们高度集中在极少数“门户岗位”中。塑造这条人才输送管道的主力是雇主,不是学校。在Opportunity@Work,我们多年来一直研究STARs及其他劳动者的技能和职业路径,目标就是帮助雇主识别那些原本可能被忽视的人才。

“门户岗位”涵盖了约75种职业,贡献了62%的高薪岗位跃升。例如,每年都有数千名客服代表(这便是一种门户岗位)转岗成为销售代表或调度员。这些岗位薪酬更高,但其看重的是同一套基础能力:积极倾听、迅速读懂他人、在压力下保持冷静,以及在利益攸关时紧紧留住客户。劳动者先在较低薪的起点岗位中培养技能,再在门户岗位深化技能,最终将技能运用到薪酬更高的目标岗位——这正是劳动者实现职业发展、人才池不断扩大的基本途径。

Opportunity@Work与布鲁金斯学会(Brookings Institution)的一项最新研究显示,从“门户岗位”转向更高薪工作的机会中,约有一半高度暴露于AI日益增强的能力之下,而这些能力既可用于自动化任务,也可用来增强劳动者技能。按照“人才陷阱”思维,人们会把受AI影响最深的门户岗位中1,860万名劳动者的技能视为固定不变,并把重点放在自动化他们的岗位上。如果以这种方式将AI应用于客服和行政助理等岗位,那么冲击范围就会扩大到仍在向这些岗位晋升的劳动者,以及所有依赖劳动者在这些岗位上积累技能的雇主,比如未来的销售团队。这些选择对美国产业、劳动者和劳动力市场的影响,将远大于它们对大学应届毕业生入门职业路径的影响——尽管后者同样重要。

与其跌入AI“人才陷阱”,不妨换个思路:如果企业在工作场所部署AI时,目标是补充和发挥最广泛的人类才能,用新颖方式更深入服务客户,会怎样?

首先,绝大多数美国劳动者都可以在现有工作环境中,针对重塑后的岗位接受再培训,并通过基于技能的转岗实现职业转型。企业采用AI时,可善用一线劳动者的隐性知识和潜力,例如让行政助理牵头重新设计业务流程,让医疗助理与患者互动以处理不健康行为。对于销售等难以填补的目标岗位,企业可利用AI增强业务能力,从而支持技能相近的门户岗位劳动者(例如客服人员)胜任新角色。这无疑将成为一套稳健的人才输送战略。

届时,就会有更少的企业高管把AI当作大规模裁员的理由或借口。更多公司可能会采取类似沃尔玛(Walmart)的做法:沃尔玛此前宣布,即便“随着AI的深度应用,每个岗位所需的技能都将发生改变”,公司仍计划保持员工总数稳定。此后6个月,沃尔玛股价涨幅达到标普500指数的两倍。区域性的产业网络也可以把技术与人才结合,打造更灵活的劳动力队伍,培育新能力、拓展新业务线,并扩大市场份额。

核心技术投资的方向也会发生变化。目前,前沿AI实验室往往通过技术基准来测试和推广最新模型,这些基准衡量的是模型取代人类完成任务的能力。未来,它们可转而设定另一类基准,用来评估人类与AI共同完成目标、共同学习的成效。AI人才工具还可以分析劳动者在打破“学历门槛”后的晋升数据,从而成为“人才陷阱”的矫正器,而非放大器。甚至可能出现新商业模式,比如“按需付费的能力增强”:AI可以先补足劳动者缺失的技能,再通过在职指导帮助他们逐步掌握这些技能,最后对技能熟练度进行认证。

鉴于AI拥有强大的变革能力,能够将人类智慧积累的成果用于我们选择的几乎任何目标,“AI”其实更应该代表“被放大的意图”(Amplified Intention)。我们为AI设定的目标至关重要,足以形成自我实现的预言。如果我们投入数万亿美元,意图用机器智能取代在职学习者,去解决我们今天已在解决的同一批问题,最终就会得到这样的结果。但如果企业能够避开AI“人才陷阱”中的错误假设,转而投资AI技术,以增强并发展尽可能广泛的人类才能和情境知识,解决尚未解决的问题,就可能带来一场“认知工业革命”,以及一场我们现在才刚刚开始想象的劳动力转型。(财富中文网)

本文作者拜伦·奥古斯特是Opportunity@Work的首席执行官,曾于2013年至2015年担任美国国家经济委员会(National Economic Council)副主任。贾斯汀·赫克为Opportunity@Work高级研究总监。

Fortune.com上发表的评论文章中表达的观点,仅代表作者本人的观点,不代表《财富》杂志的观点和立场。

译者:刘进龙

审校:汪皓

当下,围绕人工智能对经济、社会乃至人类生存影响的争论日益激烈。然而,这场喧嚣背后潜藏着一种更深层的失控感——许多讨论被简化为“AI能做什么?”这种被动思维暗示,决定AI对工作影响的是技术本身,而非人类自身。在轻信这些危险的“自我实现预言”之前,科技界、商界和社会各界的领导者,以及我们每一个普通人,都必须认清前方的双重陷阱,方能精准避坑。

2022年,埃里克·布林约尔松教授提出并命名了“图灵陷阱”,即盲目把AI的目标设为模仿人类,以期用机器取代人力,而非构建能补充并拓展人类能力的系统。

如果说“图灵陷阱”代表一种错误的工程视角,那么与之对应且同样具有破坏性的,就是“人才陷阱”——一种广泛存在、却有着根本缺陷的用工观。按照“人才陷阱”的思维方式,社会人才总量是固定的,人才主要由学校培养,并以学历来衡量;企业胜出的关键是争夺这批有限的人才,而非广泛培育新血。这种思维把一部分人视为值得争取、培养和发展的“人才”;把另一部分人仅看作“劳动力”,认为后者只需嵌入他人设计好的固定流程,无需拥有自主判断的空间。

“人才陷阱”世界观,把劳动者视为能力固定不变的静态存在,而非持续进化的“在职学习者”。因此,随着AI在越来越多认知任务上达到新基准,这些任务乃至于相应岗位都会随之消失,把人类推向更多体力密集型工作,或仅催生出极少数拥有新兴领域高级学位者才能胜任的新岗位。这种思维还把让劳动者适应AI经济的重担,一股脑压在学校、高校和正规再培训项目身上。

然而,那些可能让我们陷入AI“人才陷阱”的观念根本站不住脚。劳动者的潜力并非固定不变,大多数学习都发生在正规教育体系之外;而与工作相关的技能,往往形成于与他人和工具协作解决客户、公司或社区实际问题的过程中。

高等教育当然至关重要,但对雇主而言,最重要的人才来源其实是美国每年1,000万名劳动者,他们凭借在工作中积累的技能,转向薪酬更高且需求旺盛的岗位。这个人才群体的规模,是应届大学毕业生的五倍。这些向上流动的劳动者中,有一半属于“通过非传统途径获得技能”(Skilled Through Alternative Routes,简称STARs),没有大学学位。而且,他们高度集中在极少数“门户岗位”中。塑造这条人才输送管道的主力是雇主,不是学校。在Opportunity@Work,我们多年来一直研究STARs及其他劳动者的技能和职业路径,目标就是帮助雇主识别那些原本可能被忽视的人才。

“门户岗位”涵盖了约75种职业,贡献了62%的高薪岗位跃升。例如,每年都有数千名客服代表(这便是一种门户岗位)转岗成为销售代表或调度员。这些岗位薪酬更高,但其看重的是同一套基础能力:积极倾听、迅速读懂他人、在压力下保持冷静,以及在利益攸关时紧紧留住客户。劳动者先在较低薪的起点岗位中培养技能,再在门户岗位深化技能,最终将技能运用到薪酬更高的目标岗位——这正是劳动者实现职业发展、人才池不断扩大的基本途径。

Opportunity@Work与布鲁金斯学会(Brookings Institution)的一项最新研究显示,从“门户岗位”转向更高薪工作的机会中,约有一半高度暴露于AI日益增强的能力之下,而这些能力既可用于自动化任务,也可用来增强劳动者技能。按照“人才陷阱”思维,人们会把受AI影响最深的门户岗位中1,860万名劳动者的技能视为固定不变,并把重点放在自动化他们的岗位上。如果以这种方式将AI应用于客服和行政助理等岗位,那么冲击范围就会扩大到仍在向这些岗位晋升的劳动者,以及所有依赖劳动者在这些岗位上积累技能的雇主,比如未来的销售团队。这些选择对美国产业、劳动者和劳动力市场的影响,将远大于它们对大学应届毕业生入门职业路径的影响——尽管后者同样重要。

与其跌入AI“人才陷阱”,不妨换个思路:如果企业在工作场所部署AI时,目标是补充和发挥最广泛的人类才能,用新颖方式更深入服务客户,会怎样?

首先,绝大多数美国劳动者都可以在现有工作环境中,针对重塑后的岗位接受再培训,并通过基于技能的转岗实现职业转型。企业采用AI时,可善用一线劳动者的隐性知识和潜力,例如让行政助理牵头重新设计业务流程,让医疗助理与患者互动以处理不健康行为。对于销售等难以填补的目标岗位,企业可利用AI增强业务能力,从而支持技能相近的门户岗位劳动者(例如客服人员)胜任新角色。这无疑将成为一套稳健的人才输送战略。

届时,就会有更少的企业高管把AI当作大规模裁员的理由或借口。更多公司可能会采取类似沃尔玛(Walmart)的做法:沃尔玛此前宣布,即便“随着AI的深度应用,每个岗位所需的技能都将发生改变”,公司仍计划保持员工总数稳定。此后6个月,沃尔玛股价涨幅达到标普500指数的两倍。区域性的产业网络也可以把技术与人才结合,打造更灵活的劳动力队伍,培育新能力、拓展新业务线,并扩大市场份额。

核心技术投资的方向也会发生变化。目前,前沿AI实验室往往通过技术基准来测试和推广最新模型,这些基准衡量的是模型取代人类完成任务的能力。未来,它们可转而设定另一类基准,用来评估人类与AI共同完成目标、共同学习的成效。AI人才工具还可以分析劳动者在打破“学历门槛”后的晋升数据,从而成为“人才陷阱”的矫正器,而非放大器。甚至可能出现新商业模式,比如“按需付费的能力增强”:AI可以先补足劳动者缺失的技能,再通过在职指导帮助他们逐步掌握这些技能,最后对技能熟练度进行认证。

鉴于AI拥有强大的变革能力,能够将人类智慧积累的成果用于我们选择的几乎任何目标,“AI”其实更应该代表“被放大的意图”(Amplified Intention)。我们为AI设定的目标至关重要,足以形成自我实现的预言。如果我们投入数万亿美元,意图用机器智能取代在职学习者,去解决我们今天已在解决的同一批问题,最终就会得到这样的结果。但如果企业能够避开AI“人才陷阱”中的错误假设,转而投资AI技术,以增强并发展尽可能广泛的人类才能和情境知识,解决尚未解决的问题,就可能带来一场“认知工业革命”,以及一场我们现在才刚刚开始想象的劳动力转型。(财富中文网)

本文作者拜伦·奥古斯特是Opportunity@Work的首席执行官,曾于2013年至2015年担任美国国家经济委员会(National Economic Council)副主任。贾斯汀·赫克为Opportunity@Work高级研究总监。

Fortune.com上发表的评论文章中表达的观点,仅代表作者本人的观点,不代表《财富》杂志的观点和立场。

译者:刘进龙

审校:汪皓

Amidst the heated debate on the effect of Artificial Intelligence on our economy, our society, and even our survival lies a deeper sense of loss of control, with debates framed as “what will AI do?” This implicit passivity assumes that technology, rather than people, will determine AI’s impact on work. Before we buy into dangerous self-fulfilling prophecies, leaders in technology, business, society – and all of us – need to recognize the twin traps ahead, so we can avoid them.

In 2022, Prof Eric Brynjolfsson identified and named the “Turing Trap”, the mistake of treating the goal of AI as imitating humans so machines can replace them, rather than building systems that complement and extend human capabilities.

If the Turing Trap is a mistaken engineering perspective on AI, its damaging counterpart is the Talent Trap, a widely-held but deeply flawed view of workers. In Talent Trap thinking, society has a fixed amount of talent, developed mostly in schools, defined by educational attainment, and companies win by securing that limited pool of talent rather than growing it widely. It says some people are “talent” to be pursued, cultivated, and developed; others are “labor” to be plugged into a well-defined process determined by others, without the autonomy to exercise judgment.

The Talent Trap worldview treats human workers as fixed realities, not as working learners. So as AI hits benchmarks on more cognitive tasks, those tasks, and eventually jobs, go away, pushing humans into more physically intensive tasks or creating new roles accessible mainly to those with new advanced degrees in emerging fields. It also places the burden of adapting workers to an AI economy mostly upon schools, universities, and formal retraining programs.

The beliefs that could drive us into an AI Talent Trap are wrong. Human workers’ potential is not fixed, most learning is outside formal education, and job-relevant skills are best developed by working with other people and tools to solve customer, company, or community problems.

Higher education has a vital role, but employers’ most important talent pipeline is the 10 million U.S. workers who parlay skills gained on the job into higher-paid, in-demand jobs each year, a talent pool five times more than new college graduates. Half these upwardly mobile workers are Skilled Through Alternative Routes (STARs), without college degrees, and they are concentrated in a surprisingly small set of ‘gateway’ jobs. Employers, not schools, shape this talent pipeline. At Opportunity@Work, we’ve spent years studying the skills and career pathways of STARs and other workers, with the goal of helping employers recognize talent they might otherwise overlook.

Gateway jobs are around 75 occupations that account for 62% of the job-to-job changes that lead to higher pay. For example, every year, thousands of customer service representatives (a gateway job) become sales representatives or dispatchers, higher paying jobs that reward the same underlying skills: active listening, reading people quickly, staying calm under pressure, keeping a customer engaged when the stakes are high. Building skills in lower-wage origin jobs, deepening them in gateway jobs, and applying them to reach higher-paying destination jobs is how workers thrive and our talent pool expands.

New research by Opportunity@Work and the Brookings Institution demonstrates that roughly half the opportunities to transition from gateway jobs into higher-paying work are highly exposed to AI’s growing capabilities, which could be used both to automate tasks and augment skills. Talent Trap thinking would treat the skills of the 18.6 million workers in the most AI-exposed gateway jobs as fixed, and focus on automating their roles. If that’s the main use of AI for customer support roles and admin assistants, the blast radius will extend to those still climbing toward those jobs, and to every employer who taps into the skills workers build doing them, like in their future sales force. The consequences of these choices for American industry, workers, and labor market will be much larger than the – also important – pathways for entry level college graduates.

Instead of walking into an AI Talent Trap, what if business deployment of AI at work aimed to complement the fullest range of human talents to serve customers more deeply, in novel ways?

First, the vast majority of U.S. workers would reskill for redefined roles in the context of their current jobs and in skill-based transitions between roles. Employers’ AI adoption would leverage frontline workers’ tacit knowledge and potential, with administrative assistants leading redesigns of business workflows and medical assistants engaging patients to address unhealthy behaviors. AI-augmenting hard-to-fill destination roles (e.g., in sales) to enable skills-promixate gateway workers (e.g., in customer support) would become a robust talent pipeline strategy.

Fewer executives would cite AI as a reason or excuse for large layoffs. More companies would take an approach like Walmart, which announced plans to keep headcount steady even as “the skills of every single job will change due to AI,” and saw its stock rise twice as fast as the S&P index in the next 6 months. Regional industry networks would combine technology and talent to create more agile workforces, new capabilities, lines of business, and growing market shares.

Core technology investments would shift. Frontier AI labs currently test and promote their latest models using technical benchmarks that measure their ability to replace humans at tasks, but could instead aim to hit benchmarks assessing the efficacy of humans and AI to accomplish goals and learn together. AI talent tools could leverage data on how workers progress in the absence of paper ceiling barriers to become a corrective to the Talent Trap, not its amplifier. New business models might even emerge, like metered augmentation, in which AI could augment missing skills, help teach those skills on-the-job, then certify a worker’s skill mastery.

Given its transformative power to deploy the aggregated achievements of human intelligence for virtually any purpose we choose, “AI” should really stand for “Amplified Intention”. The goals we set for AI matter deeply enough to create self-fulfilling prophecies. If we invest trillions of dollars, intending to replace working learners with machine intelligence to solve the same problems we already solve today, we’ll eventually get that outcome. If companies avoid the false assumptions of the AI Talent Trap and invest instead in AI technology to augment and develop the fullest range of human talent and contextual knowledge to tackle unsolved problems, it could lead to a cognitive industrial revolution and workforce transformation that we can only begin to imagine.

Byron Auguste is CEO of Opportunity@Work and served as Deputy Director of the National Economic Council 2013-15. Justin Heck is Opportunity@Work’s Senior Director of Research.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

财富中文网所刊载内容之知识产权为财富媒体知识产权有限公司及/或相关权利人专属所有或持有。未经许可,禁止进行转载、摘编、复制及建立镜像等任何使用。
0条Plus
精彩评论
评论

撰写或查看更多评论

请打开财富Plus APP

前往打开