Photo by Mateusz Kitka (Pexels)

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) continues to advance by leaps and bounds, it’s impossible to overlook the profound transformations that this technological revolution is imprinting on the professions of the future. A paradigm shift is underway, redefining not only the nature of work but also how we conceptualize collaboration between humans and machines.

As creator of the ETER9 Project ⁽²⁾, I perceive AI not only as a disruptive force but also as a powerful tool to shape a more efficient, innovative, and inclusive future. As we move forward in this new world, it’s crucial for each of us to contribute to building a professional environment that celebrates the interplay between humanity and technology, where the potential of AI is realized for the benefit of all.

In the ETER9 Project, dedicated to exploring the interaction between artificial intelligences and humans, I have gained unique insights into the transformative potential of AI. Reflecting on the future of professions, it’s evident that adaptability and a profound understanding of technological dynamics will be crucial to navigate this new landscape.

Widespread automation is no longer a distant ‘threat’; it’s a reality shaping the job market. It reminds me of what I enjoyed most about programming during the golden age of computing. Routines were written only once, to be used many times; as many times as necessary, for the sake of execution efficiency and rapid development. Professions based on repetitive tasks are gradually being absorbed by algorithms and robots ⁽³⁾. However, instead of viewing this as a loss of jobs, we should embrace the opportunity to reinvent traditional work.

The professions of the future will be characterized by a symbiotic collaboration between humans and machines. While AI takes on routine tasks, humans will be free to focus on areas that require creativity, emotion, and critical thinking — inherently human skills.

In adapting to this new work environment, it’s imperative that we cultivate key skills aligned with emerging needs. The ability for continuous learning will be essential as technologies evolve rapidly. A deep understanding of AI, coupled with the ability to collaborate with algorithms, will be significant advantages.

Moreover, creativity and solving complex problems will be highly valued skills. While AI handles predictable tasks that can be mathematically executed in fractions of a second, humans will be entrusted with dealing with ambiguous challenges and unique situations that require intuition and discernment.

Repetitive and predictable tasks are being taken over by machines, freeing up human resources for more creative and cognitively challenging tasks. However, this raises the following question:

— How can we adapt and thrive in an ever-changing landscape?

The future job market demands a mindset of continuous learning. As technologies evolve, it’s imperative for professionals to reinvent themselves and acquire new skills. Formal and informal education becomes a powerful tool, providing the flexibility needed to stay relevant in a world where skills become obsolete faster than ever. A college degree today holds little value if not complemented with continuous learning.

AI is not here to replace humans but to enhance their capabilities. Collaboration between humans and machines will be constant, requiring an interdisciplinary approach to solving complex problems. Professions focusing on the management, interpretation, and enhancement of AI systems will be increasingly valued.

In an increasingly automated world, unique human skills such as creativity, empathy, and emotional intelligence become precious. Professions that demand critical thinking, solving non-standardized problems, and emotional understanding will be in high demand. The ability to innovate and think outside the box will be more valuable than ever.

With growing reliance on algorithms for crucial decision-making, there is a need for professionals dedicated to the ethics and governance of AI. Ensuring that systems are fair, transparent, and aligned with social values becomes a critical concern. AI ethics experts will play a crucial role in shaping a future where technology serves the common good.

Digital entrepreneurship will emerge (has already emerged) as a driving force behind the professions of the future. The ability to identify opportunities, create innovative solutions, and adapt quickly to market changes will be crucial. Those with an entrepreneurial mindset, willing to embrace risk, will be the architects of tomorrow.

With the decline of some traditional professions, new opportunities and professions are also emerging. AI ethics experts, programmers specializing in handling deep learning systems, user experience designers for human-machine interfaces, and cybersecurity engineers will become fundamental pillars of the new professional era.

The creation and maintenance of AI systems will also become critical areas. Professions dedicated to overseeing and ensuring that Artificial Intelligence operates ethically and safely will be essential to mitigate the ethical and social challenges associated with its widespread implementation.

As we outline the professions of the future, it’s imperative to embrace change with wisdom and resilience. AI is not a threat but a powerful tool that can free humans to focus on what they do best. By developing specific skills and embracing new opportunities, we can shape a future where humans and artificial intelligences collaborate harmoniously, harnessing the best of both worlds. The challenge is significant, but the opportunities are equally vast. We are on an exciting path toward a new professional horizon, where imagination and innovation will be the true engines of progress.

In the recent past, the idea of machines and algorithms performing complex tasks seemed to belong to the realm of science fiction. However, the present is marked by automation, machine learning, and AI, transforming industries and redefining the professional landscape.

We cannot ignore the fact that the professions of tomorrow will be radically different from those of today, and it’s essential that we are prepared to navigate this new ocean of opportunities and challenges.

⁽¹⁾ When I was invited to my first TED Talk in 2017 at TEDx Lugano, the theme was curiously about the Professions of the Future. Six years later, it’s interesting to see how the visions from that time are now deeply integrated into our daily lives. It’s crucial to recognize that most of our time is dedicated to work; therefore, it’s fundamental that it be an enjoyable and engaging activity, not the other way around! Now, more than ever, it’s essential to act to shape a better future of work.

⁽²⁾ ETER9 is a social networking platform that enables users to create digital counterparts based on advanced AI algorithms. These AI counterparts interact, learn from experiences, and make decisions on behalf of users, extending digital presence beyond physical reality. Digital counterparts can share information, ideas, and even represent their users when they aren’t available (even in extreme cases of absence, such as illness or… death).
One of the goals of the ETER9 Project is to relieve humans of mundane digital tasks, delegating these responsibilities to their AI counterparts while they focus on more meaningful human activities.

⁽³⁾ From the Czech word ‘robota’ (for ‘servitude,’ ‘forced labor’ or ‘drudgery’), robot it’s a term used to describe artificial beings created to perform human work. Czech writer Karel Capek, at the suggestion of his brother Joseph, coined this expression in 1920 when he wrote a play. Depending on whether one is pessimistic or optimistic (I’m optimistic), these now more powerful beings may either destroy or help humanity evolve.

© 2024 Henrique Jorge
This article was originally published in Portuguese on Link To Leaders.

In the 80s, “with no knowledge, only intuition”, I discovered the world of computing. I believed computers could do everything, as if it were an electronic God. But when I asked the TIMEX Sinclair 1000 to draw the planet Saturn — I am fascinated by this planet, maybe because it has rings —, I only glimpse a strange message on the black and white TV:

0/0

I stared at that 0/0 for a while on the white screen, as if waiting for the rings of Saturn to magically shape.

Nothing came up! I waited a little longer and nothing. I didn’t mean to interrupt the “God of the Machine” in his creation; it was a Planet that was asking, not a small thing!

But, nothing. I realized then we humans had a very significant role in the action of the machines.

When I was a kid, I was a dreamer eager for knowledge — I lived in a time that was not my own. I lived with my maternal grandparents, my mother — widowed since I was three years old — and my brother, in an old house in the village of Mosteiro de Fráguas (Tondela, Portugal). My brother, only 13 months older than me, companion of my adventures, dreamed about the ‘hardware’, I about the ‘software’, although we didn’t really know what that was.

Although we didn’t know what those things were, our intuition told us that was the way to go.

The few technical manuals and electronic devices our father left us were the basis of everything; not much, but a seed doesn’t seem to be much before it is sown!

My brother dissected the electronic gadgets, I devoured the books. And then came the moment when my brother (still a kid) assembled a ‘kit’ that we had ordered from TIMEX’s version of the ZX81 microcomputer for Portugal, the TIMEX Sinclair 1000 I’ve mentioned above. It was only 2 KB of RAM running on a “super” 8-bit microprocessor (Z80) at a frequency of 3.25 MHz.

The inside of the machine, which we can call ‘Digital Soul’, fascinated me. And it was with this great little machine that I started to explore Assembly Language, aka Machine Code. By doing so, I felt closer to this invisible world where everything seemed to be possible.

On ETER9 universe the Game of Life, or just Life (1970) — a cellular automaton — by John Horton Conway, is an inspiration. Besides the duplication of people (and companies) into the digital world, the life that is born, lives and dies in the ether of artificial existence, follows the same rules as the cellular automaton.

Rule of Birth: — If a cell has three neighbors in any direction, it is born.

Rule of Survival: — If a cell has two or three neighbors in any direction, it continues to live.

Rule of Death: — If a cell has none or only one neighbor, it dies by isolation. If it has four or more neighbors, it dies by overpopulation.

Technology itself is increasingly becoming part of us. And whether we like it or not, we are all already in the process of merging with machines… and we don’t even realize it yet! This fusion is invisible and silent, and happens in a very natural way. Many people insist on separating intelligent technology from people, as if there were two sides, two teams that should confront each other. Almost as if a conflict happens between the two sides.

I don’t see it that way. I prefer to see man and machine united towards a single, common goal: to coexist in absolute harmony!

Furthermore, I believe that in the future there will be no clear distinction between humans and machines, every aspect of our lives will be transformed. The technological evolution is exponential, technology increasingly feeds on itself. I would go further: technology is increasingly becoming intelligent… artificially intelligent.

And what a subject this is. So sensitive and sometimes controversial.

I must confess: I prefer to see Artificial Intelligence as an improvement to ourselves, when allied to the human being itself, with increasingly wide applications.

Some studies show that Artificial Intelligence could double the annual economic growth by 2035. Of course, this will lead to many changes in various areas. Changes to the nature of jobs are predicted, for example.

But just as we can’t imagine ever seeing professions like paperboy again, so in the future some professions we see today will fall away to make way for others. This is only natural. The impact of Artificial Intelligence technologies on business is expected to increase labor productivity by up to 40%. This will change the way we all look at the world.

And while Artificial Intelligence is increasingly present in digital systems, this concept has led to the development of ‘Machine Learning’, which is based on the ability of computers to learn from information without being explicitly programmed to do so.

In essence, instead of teaching computers everything they need to know, and how to perform tasks, scientists and engineers have come to the conclusion that it is much more efficient to codify them to ‘think’ as if they were humans. Teaching them to learn for themselves.

These ‘Machine Learning’ systems take Artificial Intelligence to another level, through so-called neural networks or ‘Deep Learning’, where the system learns to perform tasks based on huge amounts of information, readjusting itself thousands of times until it can accomplish a task.

Essentially, the machine is intended to categorize information in the same way that a human brain would.

In other words, or modern words to be more exact, from the human brain to the cloud.

© 2022 Ӈ

It is our duty to get this job done. “[N]othing can settle our affairs so expeditiously as an open and determined declaration for independance.” The Declaration of Independence was written after Common Sense, mainly by Thomas Jefferson. A life extension version of it might look something like this:

Declaration of Independence from Death

We hold this truth to be self-evident, that all people are created equal, that they are endowed by life with certain unalienable rights, that chief among them is life itself, that is, freedom from incurring the injustice of a defined lifespan. To secure this right, science is practiced among people, deriving its just power from the purest form of the pursuit for answers, for the lifting of the veils of ignorance that hold us back from true freedom. Whenever anything becomes destructive of this end, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new practices, laying its foundation on principles and organizing its power in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their survival. The history of death is a history of repeated horrors and atrocities. Let the facts be submitted to a candid world.

Every person who dies misses out on what very well may be an infinity of incredible wonders and opportunities. This is stiflingly enormous opportunity cost. People lose their freedom, memories, goals, thoughts, themselves; others lose them; all of humanity and the universe loses them, and nothing in the universe compares to a human. The all-around suffering that death causes to the individuals it kills and the people around them is staggering and endlessly traumatic, causing stress and damage on countless levels of every part of life and society. The death process is degrading and undignified, humiliating people for decades as it reduces them to feebleness, senility and dust. Death deprives people of the ability to know what is going on in this mysterious dimension we all find ourselves in here, what we ultimately are and why we are here. It steals away our chance to know what marvels and wonders exist in the expanses of the great unknown, our ability to experience pleasures we haven’t yet, our ability to know what it’s like to experience the fulfillment of all of our goals, and the chance to work for and live in an existence of negligible or perhaps even non-existent fallacy.

We, the freedom loving members of humanity, from all around the globe, of all cultures and creeds, solemnly declare, that we are, and of right ought to be free from death in the form of defined lifespans. To this end we mutually pledge to each other our fortunes and our sacred honor.

The customs of conventions, our current mainstream traditions, are against us, and will be so, until, by a thorough awakening for independence from death, our oldest and most sacred right, takes its rightful and long overdue place among the ranks of other indispensable rights. “The custom of all courts is against us, and will be so, until, by an independance, we take rank with other nations.”

“Wherefore, if they have not virtue enough to be Whigs, they ought to have prudence enough to wish for Independance.” People do not need to want to live for thousands of years in order to want independence from death, they need only want their own freedom to choose what course they may, and the same for their friends and families. Some people don’t want to be forced to live for thousands of years, and some people don’t want to be forced to die before the age of 125. Currently, however, only the people who might choose to die at the age of 50 have the freedom to make that choice. With unlimited lifespans, we can all be free. This is about eradicating deaths tyranny, not death, in the same way that the American revolutionaries worked to break the stranglehold of tyranny that Great Britain held over them, not stop every slight and fight they might have post-independence.

“We fight neither for revenge nor conquest; […] we are not insulting the world with our fleets and armies, nor ravaging the globe for plunder.” Our war is even more dignified. It is removal of a tyranny and the installation of one of the greatest freedoms of all, all without a shedding of blood.

“[L]et a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.” The ‘law as King’ is superior to ‘humans as Kings’ because people collectively form laws with some amount of oversight of each other’s input. “Law” as the foundation, however, can still tend to be quite arbitrary. Life is what rules us, living, the chance to do people things in a universe of endless opportunities. Let life wear the crown and guide us along our path to true freedom. “The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind.” The cause of expanding our frontiers and abilities, of expanding life, is in great measure the greatest cause of them all.

“Suppose now I say ‘I’m incapable of being wrong about this: that is a book’ while I point to an object. What would a mistake here be like? And have I any clear idea of it?” There are fake books, tricks are played, there are mind altering substances, coincidences happen, there could be a secret society of magicians controlling public perceptions, or our world could be some kind of solipsistic melting pot of dreams and hallucinations. We could list things like these all day. There are simpler examples for common situations as well, like, somebody might be unquestionably convinced they are seeing a magazine when it is a zine, or a cow when it is in fact a bull. It’s also pretty common for people to think that they know a person made a mistake that they did not actually make. Consider that the way the future is headed, there is a good chance we will all have 3d printers that run on practically free energy and make everything out of basic materials like sand and vegetation, be free to travel around the universe with access to trillions of planets, and so forth. In that reality, theme planets are all but inevitable. There will be planets for specific ecological niches and time periods. People will be able to set up Plato’s Cave, Truman Show style planets, and countless other scenarios. Being that this seems so inevitable (read The Singularity is Near if you are not convinced), why would we assume that we are not in a scenario like that right now?

What happens though, is if we were to take the groundlessness of surety into account in our day to day communication, we wouldn’t be able to say anything. It seems we might almost be cornered into adopting language games. “This game proves its worth. That may be the cause of its being played, but it is not the ground.” The temptation to stay locked into them is almost irresistible, especially the hereditary ones. “[W]ould it be unthinkable that I should stay in the saddle however much the facts bucked?” It isn’t unthinkable because the entire purpose of the game is to ride unreasonable broncos and we have been training since we were born. Wittgenstein goes on to ponder, “Certain events would [put] me into a position in which I could not go on with the old language-game any further. In which I was torn away from the sureness of the game. Indeed, doesn’t it seem obvious that the possibility of a language-game is conditioned by certain facts?” It’s possible but usually very difficult because safeguards and defense mechanisms are built into them too. When a person does something detrimental, “it is what it is” — when evidence bucks, faith grips tighter — another team might have won the super bowl, but their quarterback threw for more yards in the season.

There are a lot of incompatible language games being played around the world. If you tell a person embedded in another one that they are wrong, it’s almost as if they cannot know it because if they were to consider that they should doubt parts of it, it would open the door to the slippery slope leading to the “annihilation of all yardsticks”, and it is difficult, maybe nearly impossible, to live in a world without them. “If something happened calculated to make me doubtful of my own name, there would certainly also be something that made the grounds of these doubts themselves seem doubtful, and I could therefore decide to retain my old belief.” In order to take action, you have to make decisions, and in order to make decisions, some of the patterns in your mind need to win out over the others. If there aren’t any execute commands in the code, then the code is lifeless and goes nowhere.

Does this mean that we have to permit some unsubstantiated assertions? All of them? Do we have the right to dismiss any of them? If it turns out to be true that there is no foundation for knowledge or contemplation, then how could we draw such a line? I think a lot of it comes down to what I talk about in terms of how much we are willing to bet at a given time, and the use of words like “seems”. “We just do not see how very specialized the use of ‘I know’ is. For ‘I know’ seems to describe a state of affairs which guarantees what is known, guarantees it as a fact. One always forgets the expression ‘I thought I knew’ “.
It’s not that we know, it’s that certain things look very likely to us from our current perspective, and we all know that our perspectives have changed, and therefore that more of them will likely change as well. We should learn to expect this, and if we are honest with ourselves, be proactive about it. I believe that is the common language game we can all play. It is like we are trying to play blackjack with people who are trying to play poker, war, concentration and rummy with us. If we all played poker, our individual bets would still range in scale depending on our hands at any given time but we would all be playing a compatible game.

When it comes to the concept of “seems”, I have found that there doesn’t seem to be a lot of alternatives, which sometimes makes it difficult to talk in terms of it in a stylistically appropriate way. Being that people are prone to asserting the uncertain so pervasively, it makes sense that we might end up with so few words for expressing variations and shades of doubt. Wittgenstein uses a variety of phrasing throughout the book that give us some ideas on how we might expand it. I pulled many of them together and summed them up:

“Suppose I replaced Moore’s ‘I know’ by ‘I am of the unshakeable conviction’?”
“It stands fast for me and many others…”
‘That’s how it is — rely upon it.’
“I learned it years and years ago”
“I am sure it is so.“
“is an irreversible belief.“
“it gives us a right to assume it.”
“Suppose it were forbidden to say ‘I know’ and only allowed to say ‘I believe I know’?”
“excludes a certain kind of failure”
“I can hardly be mistaken”
“That is the truth — so far as a human being can know it.“

That is not to say that every communication should necessarily be tentative. One of the main conclusions that Wittgenstein reaches is that our beliefs can be justified, but not certain. “[…] I find it quite correct for someone to say ‘Rubbish!’ and so brush aside the attempt to confuse him with doubts at bedrock, — nevertheless, I hold it to be incorrect if he seeks to defend himself (using, e.g., the words ‘I know’).” I think of that in terms of calculated risk. Sometimes you have to remove the language of doubt in order to favor the patterns in life that seem most important. That, though, is less like certainty and more like leadership. All confidence is either bluff or ignorance. If we have calculated the potential value in bluffing our certainty, that is one thing, but to do it blindly, unknowingly, is another.

Wittgenstein talks about how if existential certainty is there to be found, it would probably be in a form similar to a mathematical proposition and proof. “If the proposition 12x12=144 is exempt from doubt, then so too must non-mathematical propositions be.” “If” being a key word there. He reminds us that it seems as though they cannot be certain either but goes out on a short limb to humor that they are. In that process he makes what I find to be one of the most profound and rather Godel-esque insights of the book: ”there ought to be a proposition that is just as certain, and deals with the process of this calculation, but isn’t itself mathematical. I am thinking of such a proposition as: ‘The multiplication 12x12, when carried out by people who know how to calculate, will in the great majority of cases give the result 144.’ Nobody will contest this proposition, and naturally it is not a mathematical one.” That might be a key to extinguishing existential angst and establishing the foundation of common meaning.

It is true that the universe might be infinite and that even if it isn’t, the work to reach certainty might still end up being like trying to reach zero by continuously dividing by half, always inching closer, impossible to reach. In the meantime, we wait in suspense as patterns wind their way through the chaos like armies meandering through mine fields. Certainty is no more than the soldiers out ahead who haven’t been blown up yet, standing in the middle of the field with a universe of unknown mines ahead. Some evolutionary lineages successfully walk on for hundreds of millions of years before they are blown up and consumed by the blur. What choice do we have, what else might we do, use patterns we don’t understand or that are wrong more of the time? We don’t know if we will make it or not. Maybe it is too difficult. Maybe it will take a hundred million additional years. Maybe we are in the home stretch and artificial intelligence of the near future is the calculator of existential proofs. We just don’t know.

We don’t know how long it might take to get a better grip on the nature of certainty, and death is barreling down on us, hence the movement for indefinite life extension. It is tragic to be uncertain about everything, which includes our own wants and needs, when the stakes are so high. It is tragic to live and die as a captive in a dark basement. Earth is that basement and our lifespans are the walls. Some people don’t see that, like captives of Plato’s cave.

As things stand, the best we can do is be willing to make educated bets at any given time. The only thing we know for sure is that we don’t know anything for sure. We don’t even know if we don’t know. That is good news though, therein sneaks the foundation that begins to unravel the absurd. If the only thing we know is that nothing makes sense until we know, and that by working to figure stuff out, we could end up knowing, that small patch of philosophical ground in the quicksands of uncertainty becomes the launchpad upon which we begin stringing lines of certainty together. Anything else would be illogical, against our nature, detrimental to our fitness. Standing on this platform is a stage in our evolutionary trajectory.

“We all believe that it isn’t possible to get to the moon; but there might be people who believe that that is possible and that it sometimes happens. We say: these people do not know a lot that we know. And, let them be never so sure of their belief — they are wrong and we know it. If we compare our system of knowledge with theirs then theirs is evidently the poorer one by far.”