My Thoughts on AI, Labor, Responsibility, and the Value of Human Work

With the recent rapid spread of AI technology, I feel like the very way we view work and responsibility is gradually being shaken. While technology used to be confined to specific fields, it's now naturally permeating everything from specialized fields like medicine and finance to routine tasks like logistics and administration. As we witness predictive models assisting with medical treatment, automated algorithms planning logistics routes, and chatbots handling customer service, we're forced to ask ourselves, "What exactly should humans do?" Perhaps this is why I'm increasingly concerned about what jobs will remain and what will be handed over to technology.

A particularly frequent topic in this shift is responsibility. No matter how sophisticated AI becomes, responsibility for its outcomes ultimately rests with humans. Algorithms can't be blamed for inaccurate medical diagnoses or flawed financial decisions. Even if entire processes appear automated, humans are the ones responsible for verifying and explaining the final results. Therefore, areas requiring ethical judgment and legal responsibility are likely to remain the domain of humans, even as technology advances. While AI may prove useful as an "advisor," there are still many hurdles to overcome before it can completely hand over decision-making authority.

The next crucial factor is cost structure. Companies don't choose automation simply because the technology allows it. Considering the costs of system implementation, maintenance, employee training, and responding to unexpected errors, employing people is often far more practical. Especially in industries with high production volatility, the flexibility of people over machines is undeniable. Indeed, even seemingly automatable areas like warehouse work, cleaning, and agricultural labor continue to require human intervention due to this economic consideration. It's not a lack of technology; in practice, human labor often proves more efficient.

These changes are exacerbating the polarization of the labor market. On one side, jobs requiring judgment and expertise are increasingly empowered by the use of AI as a tool. Conversely, repetitive, low-value work remains largely filled by many, often with inadequate compensation relative to the intensity of the labor. AI is not replacing all jobs. Rather, it is widening existing gaps and sharpening the distinction between "what is important" and "what is not."

Nevertheless, AI certainly creates new possibilities. Tasks previously reserved for experts are now accessible to anyone in a fraction of the time. For example, video editing, graphic design, and data analysis, once time-consuming tasks, are now relatively easy to approach with a basic level of skill. This shift lowers the barrier to creativity and technological experimentation, opening up new opportunities for more people. At the same time, it also raises the question, "Where, then, is the value of effort and skill defined?" The faster results become, the more complex the question becomes about the significance of human touch.

Ultimately, the key issue going forward isn't a competition between humans and AI. The key is figuring out which abilities are uniquely human and how to maintain and strengthen them. Judgment, empathy, ethical reasoning, and the ability to interpret complex situations remain areas where humans possess strengths. Moments requiring experience-based judgment, which technology cannot replicate, will continue to exist. If AI is positioned to complement rather than replace human capabilities, technology will no longer take away human jobs but instead expand them in new directions. Striking a balance between these two will be crucial going forward, and I believe that the shape of society and the work environment will significantly change depending on that balance.