AI may be making workers complacent. As more professions begin to rely on artificial intelligence, certain skills will be lost. This phenomenon, known as deskilling, is emerging in many industries and could lead to problems down the road.
What’s deskilling? The danger of AI has moved from “apocalypse to atrophy,” said The Atlantic. As the technology advances, people are losing the ability to perform certain tasks without its assistance. For example, doctors were found to be less adept at finding precancerous growths during colonoscopies after just three months of using an AI tool designed to spot them, according to a study published in the Lancet Gastroenterology and Hepatology. The study sparked worry about AI use in the medical sphere, with many concerned that “just three months of using an AI tool could erode the skills of the experienced physicians,” said The New York Times.
Deskilling has been observed across an array of fields. Therapists may be “allowing themselves to become passive in the act of therapy,” limiting their “reflexive diagnostic thinking,” said Forbes. In education, students are using AI to write essays or do research. But the “term paper, for all its tedium, teaches a discipline that’s hard to reproduce: building an argument step by step, weighing evidence, organizing material, honing a voice,” said The Atlantic.
How bad is it? Deskilling is not strictly a bad thing. “Every advance has cost something,” said The Atlantic. “Literacy dulled feats of memory but created new powers of analysis. Calculators did a number on mental arithmetic; they also enabled more people to ‘do the math.’” The Lancet study only analyzed one skill of a group of physicians and did not “evaluate individual doctors to determine whether they lost skills over time,” said Physicians Weekly. It was also an observational study, meaning AI cannot be pinpointed as a cause for the lower accuracy in precancerous growth detection.
Another study found that incorporating AI raised cancer detection rates by approximately 20%. The AI usage was “plainly beneficial, regardless of whether individual clinicians became fractionally less sharp," said The Atlantic. |