AI quietly taking away low-value jobs: Are you at risk?
Kamal Karanth, co-founder of Xpheno, a specialist staffing firm, puts this into perspective. He says that since Robotic Process Automation (RPA) became mainstream a decade ago, lower-spectrum roles—those that are rule-based, objective, repeatable and transferable—have been increasingly impacted.advertisement'The threat of AI replacing human role-holders is high and imminent in these lower-spectrum functions. The demand for entry-level talent in such low-complexity roles will gradually decline as Agentic AI tools and processes (AI systems capable of autonomous action with minimal human intervention) mature,' he says.For instance, roles such as of test engineers, application testers, QA testers, software test engineers, and QA engineers—who account for more than a third (36 per cent-40 per cent) of the total talent pool in the IT sector's testing and QA/QC functions—fall into this category. These are likely to become highly replaceable roles as AI matures in the near term.In contrast, middle-spectrum roles that require a mix of rule-based actions and intuitive, mid-level cognitive processing face a longer-term threat of full automation. AI's current maturity curve in terms of precision and consistency is still developing. However, talent in this layer can benefit from AI by using it to enhance speed and scale.At the higher end of the spectrum, roles that demand advanced cognitive skills have a long way to go before they can challenge or disrupt this talent tier. Here, AI will serve more as an assistant than a replacement, helping workers operate more efficiently, but posing little threat of displacing them.advertisement'The next 10 years in the world of work will be a time of massive transition, much like during the Industrial Revolution when the onset of automation led to widespread unemployment,' predicts Mishra. 'With AI, many lower-level jobs are already disappearing, and this impact is only going to grow with time.'Subscribe to India Today Magazine- Ends
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
10 minutes ago
- Mint
Here's a case for why AI should pay for the environmental damage it causes
Humanity has collectively decided to keep pampering the fossil-fuel industry despite knowing for decades that its products are not only harmful to long-term well-being but also imminently replaceable. It shouldn't make the same expensive mistake with artificial intelligence. Last week, Laurence Tubiana, chief executive officer of the European Climate Foundation, a non-profit research and advocacy group, suggested taxing AI to raise money for climate adaptation. Tubiana helped craft the Paris climate accord and is part of the Global Solidarity Levies Task Force, a group rummaging through the world's couch cushions for spare change to help it adjust to an environment growing more chaotic and destructive as the planet gets hotter. The group has identified some obvious targets, such as taxing 'premium flyers," cryptocurrencies, fossil-fuel profits and shipping emissions. Also Read: Outrage over AI is pointless if we're clueless about AI models Until Tubiana's comments, the group hasn't said much about AI. Sutton's Law—based on the apocryphal claim by Willie Sutton that he robbed banks because that's where the money was—suggests it might want to give AI a look. The United Nations Trade and Development Agency has estimated the value of this market will explode from $189 billion to $4.8 trillion by 2033, starting to threaten the size of the fossil-fuel market. All that growth will require dizzying amounts of energy to run data centers around the clock and a lot of water to cool acres of servers. These power-hungry facilities, which are popping up around the world like acne on a teenager, could consume as much as 12% of total US electricity by 2028, according to a report last year by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, up from 4.4% in 2023. By 2050, data centers could use as much as 8.7% of the entire world's energy, BloombergNEF estimates. Also Read: Climate progress: India's transition path to clean energy is about get steeper Much of that power will be generated by fossil fuels, the primary source of the greenhouse gases cooking the atmosphere. Data-center operations could increase global emissions of these gases by 3.5 billion tonnes in the next decade, BNEF reckons, which is about 10% of total global emissions today. The microchips, steel and cement used to build data centers carry their own heavy climate cost. Meanwhile, US data centers could guzzle 74 billion gallons of water a year by 2028, up from less than 6 billion in 2014, according to Lawrence Berkeley. In light of all this, taxing AI to defray its harm to the climate sounds like a great idea. We've already got the perfect example of what happens when you fail to hold an industry accountable for its externalities: fossil fuels. By one estimate, we give oil, gas and coal producers about $6 trillion every year in implied subsidies by failing to price their products high enough to account for their environmental damage. That's a lot of money that could go toward steeling ourselves against rising seas and weather disasters. Also Read: Rely on modern geothermal energy to power our AI ambitions The rationale of these subsidies is that the societal benefits of fossil fuels—namely, abundant energy to fuel economic growth—outweigh the costs. But this gets more untrue every year as an increasingly chaotic climate wreaks more havoc. Each degree Celsius the planet warms over pre-industrial averages cuts global economic growth by 12%, according to a National Bureau of Economic Research study last year. Of course, this wasn't so apparent in the 19th century, when today's fossil fuel industry was just a gleam in John D. Rockefeller's eye. Magical stuff came out of the ground that kept the lights on, and it took us a little while to see the downside. In contrast, the societal benefits of AI are fuzzy at best while the many downsides are already plain. It makes no sense to give this industry its own free pass on environmental destruction. In theory, a tax on AI, or at least its carbon emissions, would push tech companies to seek efficiency and cleaner energy sources. In practice, making such a tax work would be challenging, Robert Bikel, director of the Socially‚ Environmentally‚ and Ethically Responsible Programme at the Pepperdine Graziadio Business School, told me. If you make the tax too low, then it becomes just another cost of business and loses effectiveness. If you make it too high, then tech companies will just build their data centers in a jurisdiction that's not so picky about the environment. The net result might be more emissions than without the tax. Making such a levy universal would help solve that problem. But good luck getting two of the world's biggest AI enthusiasts—US President Donald Trump's US and China—to play along. For that matter, a global tax on carbon would be the most efficient device of all, taking care of those fossil-fuel subsidies and keeping the AI industry in line in one fell swoop. But that's even deeper in political fantasyland. Also Read: Going nuclear will be the only way to keep the lights on as AI guzzles ever more electricity Still, there are other tools. NIMBYism is unhelpful in many ways, but it has put some brakes on runaway data-center growth. In the past two years, projects worth $64 billion have been canceled or delayed by public opposition, according to the research group Data Center Watch. The blowback is bipartisan; 55% of the public officials opposing new data centers were Republicans. Pressure from locals and investors could be enough to make AI purveyors embrace tech that uses less energy and water. They could use their excess heat to keep local homes warm, cutting energy bills and fossil fuel demand. They could invest in renewables, grid upgrades and carbon removal and capture. Most importantly, though, they need to stop and think about exactly how much of this rush to make AI as big and resource-consuming as physically possible is truly necessary. 'There's a lot of techno-optimism that more tech and more growth is inherently good," Bikel said. 'I like to flip that around and say what is the economy serving? What's AI serving? How is it contributing to human flourishing or even just existential stability?" Answering those questions would go a long way to making AI's growth more sustainable and avoiding many more expensive mistakes. ©Bloomberg The author is a Bloomberg Opinion editor and columnist covering climate change.
Time of India
37 minutes ago
- Time of India
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman admits he is ‘scared' to use AI: ‘I don't know who is…'
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman recently admitted that is scared to use 'certain AI stuff' sometimes. Speaking at one of the episodes of Theo Von's podcast This Past Weekend, Altman said 'I get scared sometimes to use certain AI stuff, because I don't know how much personal information I want to put in, because I don't know who's going to have it.' Sam Altman was responding to Von's question on the fast pace of AI development 'Do you think there should be kind of like a slowing things down?' During the conversation, the OpenAI CEO compared the current competition among AI companies as an 'intense' race not only for commercial domination, but as tool that will echo for generations. He further stated that ChatGPT-maker OpenAI does not move quickly, someone else will, adding that fate of AI could slip out of hands of those most mindful about its social consequences. Uncertain about human future: Sam Altman During the podcast, Sam Altman acknowledged how uncertain the human future is. 'I think all of human history suggests we find a way to put ourselves at the center of the story and feel really good about it … Even in a world where AI is doing all of this stuff that humans used to do, we are going to find a way in our own telling of the story to feel like the main characters,' he said. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Indian Investors Are Buying These Dubai Apartments—Here's Why Binghatti Developers FZE Explore Undo Altman also addressed the fear of certain jobs becoming obsolete because of AI. 'How will people survive?' host Von asked. To this, Sam Altman replied AI will create possibilities for individuals to pursue more creative, philosophical, or interpersonal goals. He said that when everyone can get instant help and knowledge through AI, people can rethink what it means to contribute to society. However, he warned that the shift could be very difficult for those who lose their jobs in the short term. Realme 15 Pro: Flagship Features for Less? AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
Time of India
38 minutes ago
- Time of India
RBI governor rules out bank licence for corporates
Mumbai: RBI governor Sanjay Malhotra said there is no proposal to allow corporates, either through NBFCs or directly, to obtain banking licences. 'There is no proposal as of now to allow corporates, whether through NBFCs or as a individual company to get a banking license,' he said, citing 'an inherent conflict of interest with a group actually dealing with the money of the depositors. ' On promoter shareholding in private banks, Malhotra said the 26% limit on voting rights is laid down under the Banking Regulation Act. 'There is no proposal to review this 26% shareholding,' he said. The RBI supports 'diversification of ownership so that there are checks and balances within the owners, which we feel is necessary.' He added that foreign banks may take up to 100%, subject to conditions. He was speaking during a fireside chat at an event in Mumbai. The RBI has long opposed the entry of large corporate houses into banking, citing risks related to governance failures, connected lending, and excessive influence. Its stance draws on global norms and past episodes in India where similar conflicts contributed to bank failures. The Govt has broadly supported the RBI's cautious view, preferring to keep banking ownership dispersed and independent of industrial groups. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Emergency Generators in Adis Abeba: (Prices May Surprise You) Emergency Generator | Search Ads Search Now Undo Proposals from industry bodies to open up the sector have consistently failed to gain traction, with policymakers emphasizing regulatory prudence and financial stability. Economists and commentators have consistently warned against allowing corporate-owned banks. They argue that such ownership structures increase the risk of crony capitalism and weaken credit discipline. Reports like the 2014 Nachiket Mor Committee and the 2020 internal working group discussed the idea, with the latter controversially recommending cautious entry for corporates. However, these suggestions faced immediate criticism from academics and the public, who said India's regulatory framework may not be equipped to manage the risks involved. The RBI's insistence on limiting promoter voting rights to 26% reinforces its intent to keep control fragmented. While foreign banks may hold larger stakes, domestic owners face stricter caps to reduce concentration and ensure effective oversight. The approach reflects a broader aim of maintaining depositor confidence and system integrity. Despite recurring calls for reform, neither the RBI nor the Govt has shown willingness to ease restrictions on corporate entry into banking. With the RBI reiterating its position, the door remains closed to business conglomerates seeking banking licences. Stay informed with the latest business news, updates on bank holidays and public holidays . AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
