|Thanks, enjoyed that article and its content. One of the glaring questions which begs discussion is this headline from the report.|
"5. How do we manage the upcoming workforce transitions?"
Considering no one can pinpoint who is WE. Does We include McKinseys functions as superfluous as those 30 % predicted within their job loss classifications? Realizing, the 30% figure is hypothetical with an arrival date of 2030….whose goals are these?
McKinseys functions are highly susceptible to AI Replacement as they function as consultants with imperfect information. Mostly consultants structure information to gain a degree of traction, leading to revenue streams back to the consultant. Outsourcing the middle man, in this case McKinsey in this scenario of job obsolescence, becomes problematic does it not for McKinsey or a host of consultant functions in the face of a Super Strong AI?
In many ways the projected losses of jobs could be subjectively welcomed by them that are doing them.
Providing there are exogenic inputs into the system, humans will adapt.
The full report at the link contains a slow walk self interest that keeps McKinseys game going. Predictably AI should be in a position to replace inadequate advisors much sooner than 2030.
Compartmentalization has been keystone to successful consulting enterprises, due to the fact that every one knows, No one knows, Whois on first.
AI of the strong sort, cannot tolerate missing information, missing information contradicts its aims, and therefore it predicts the breakdown of compartmentalization as a first level priority. Holism emerges as the bumpy ride out of the past. Humans and their obsolescence becomes catalactic of Parallel Scale, where the opportunity to be more than a member of the 30% chattel class, is seen as a blessing, not a curse.