Automation-Prompted Skill Evolution: Not Just for Blue Collar Jobs (From the FastFulcrum Archives)

Please follow and like us:

I’m a FlipBoard junkie. Some folks are hooked on Candy Crush, some on Pokemon Go (or another flavor-of-the-month app that promotes one walking into traffic) – but for me, whenever there’s a free moment I’m feverishly thumb-flicking through headlines & article ledes in FlipBoard, then dropping those of interest into digital “magazines” which can be enjoyed later and also shared with others. It kinda makes the user a curator of content – sometimes it feels like playing Tetris with web articles, dropping chunks of hey-this-is-cool down a digital well. The itchy problem with FlipBoard is that while it’s very easy to find interesting content to flip into a magazine, carving out life-time to actually read the ever-deepening pile of said content can be rabidly problematic.

Earlier this week – based on my indicated fetish/obsession with Artificial Intelligence & robotics – FlipBoard dealt me an article from SingularityHub which was originally published in May of this year. The title of the article is, “Machines Won’t Replace Us, They Will Force Us to Evolve“. As that’s a point I just touched upon in the August 29 post, I thought I’d mosey over and take a gander.

The focus of this thought-provoking piece is how AI will affect design and engineering. Specifically, how designers will describe what is (and what is not) desired to an application and to help guide it to produce the final, satisfactory output/product. This is indicative of a shift in roles: from technical operator to maestro. This shift was echoed in another SingularityHub piece that dropped on August 29 (Engineering Will Soon Be ‘More Parenting Than Programming’).

Reminds me of something I read in a book a long, long time ago. Back when there were a lot more bookstores in the wild, I used to actively seek them out and haunt them. I was like a bloodhound, locked onto the spoor of ink and paper. When going on vacation to distant locales, would I buy a t-shirt emblazoned with some local attraction, or a kitschy snow globe, or a cheap shot glass? Nope. I’d buy a book from a local bookshop and snag a bookmark printed with the name of the place (if one was to be had). This approach to souvenir accumulation has proven to be infinitely more useful and left me with far less junk to throw away later in life.

It was on one such bookstore loiter session that I ran across Pulitzer Prize nominee James Martin’s awesome book, “After the Internet: Alien Intelligence“. Who could leave a book on the shelf after getting hit with that title? Seriously, it smashed into my forehead like a flaming axe handle.

Martin’s 2000 book was my first ‘serious’ exposure to Artificial Intelligence, and it was an enjoyable, solid overview of the core concepts. One of the ideas that flash-parboiled my brain was that software engineers who are developing AI will not conduct standard coding activities, but rather will serve in a far less traditional capacity. As Martin puts it: “Like a horse breeder, a software breeder has a precise goal in mind. But software evolution directs itself toward that target at electronic speed, trying out millions of variations.” He also wrote that, “the future of computing depends upon the extent to which we can direct self-evolving software so that we can extract the most value out of it.”

Tangentially mutating Martin’s analogy, I’m seeing software ‘cowboys’ trying to drive a herd of AI ‘cattle’ toward a given goal, prodding and nudging the mass along while occasionally having to catch one of the dowgies that’s strayed off back into the fold.

Martin’s description of these job activities and the SingularityHub articles made me hearken back to the work I used to do as a business analyst. My job (across three different companies, over time) was to determine what an application being developed was to accomplish, to codify those requirements, to get buy off from stakeholders, to communicate those requirements to the developers and to ensure those requirements were being met and delivered in a timely manner. Digital scribe, arbiter and shepherd, that was me. A business analyst’s responsibility was to define what was to be done, not how it was to be done. This sounds like a cousin to what is being described by Martin and the SingularityHub articles.

What’s the upshot? Yes, machines will force us to evolve. We will have to expand our skill sets to accommodate the professional challenges presented by a work dynamic that will shift, buck and wiggle like a tub of Jell-o in an earthquake due to the ever-expanding capabilities of the tools we use to do our jobs.

Even though the focus here is on how the relationship between developer/designer/engineer & technology is changing, it does not mean that this dynamic is exclusive to this white collar, technology development arena. In order to facilitate our ongoing economic survival, many of us will have to figure out what complementary skills are required to work in tandem with developing technologies and effectively demonstrate those skills and our value on an ongoing basis. This is important to remember and internalize whether you work in software development or customer service. We’re seeing increasing instances of automation/robotics being incorporated into clothing productionfood preparation and security. This is a growing trend that shows no sign of slowing down.

So, regardless of the color of our collar, how do we remain relevant? By watching the technologies that can affect our industries, determining how we can evolve to either work alongside them or to completely evolve into another role.

Do you want to Remain Relevant in the Age of Automation?  If so, please have a look at the FastFulcrum courses that provide the substrate skills needed to do so:


  1. Diane Lujan

    I, too, am a fan of FlipBoard! I started using it as a source for inspiration when I was creating content (the instructional design piece) for professional and personal development. As I consider the work we are doing on Remaining Relevant in the Age of Automation, I am balancing getting deeper into a position of a post rather than taking it at face value.

    For example, I am following what is going on with Davos 2019. There was a piece about the future of journalism and how digital media has enabled the spread of disinformation to undermine professional journalism, particularly where politics was concerned. What made me take pause is the assertion that journalism is losing the ‘attention battle’ to digital media. I realize that I fall into that push-me-pull-me with my attention. My habit is to read the headlines and skim for important information or a concept that intrigues. My value is really to align myself with the 17% of the people of identify who themselves as ‘new lovers’ and read an article with an open mind with an intention to learn.

  2. Evans Mehew Post author

    Love your mindset in terms of how you regard posts … especially reading an article with an open mind and an intention to learn! I, too, try to do that and be as objective as possible. I once read that Thomas Jefferson said that if you can only buy one newspaper, buy one that espouses positions with which you don’t agree … otherwise you’re not learning anything new.

    Past life, I studied to be a journalist. Thought I was going to be “Fletch”. I think back to all I studied about journalism (print, radio, television) in the 80s & 90s and am rocked back by how greatly everything has changed. The weaponizing of information has always been a thing, but now it can be done by anyone and reach almost everyone. Staggering. In the age of digital manipulation and beyond-ubiquitious digital delivery, who knows what can be believed? Can you believe your eyes … your ears … the traditional ‘bastions of truth’?

    Gonna land on “nope”.

    On the attention front, I hear you. My challenge with FlipBoard is the tendency to flip/archive/curate with every intention of reading an article … but I don’t double back to dive in. This is not universally true, of course, but it happens often enough for me to get irked with myself.