To The Moon

$NVIDIA(NVDA)$

I’m a perpetual optimist. It’s hard for me to see the world through any other lens! Sometimes I’m naive, but overall I think it’s a better way to live (and, generally, hard to bet against humanity’s resilience).

One of the larger debates surrounding AI relates to the impact it will have on employment. One side (booo, the pessimists!) argues we’ll see a collapse in employment as AI takes everyone’s jobs. The other side argues some form of “Jevon’s paradox” - with massive positive economic benefits. Given my intro, I think it’s clear what side of that debate I fall on!

There are many ways I’ve framed this in the past (I think I’ve even written about it in a prior week’s edition). However, I heard Jensen recently articulate it much more eloquently (surprise surprise, he’s better at framing this than me!). The crux of his argument (which I wholeheartedly agree with), is that the framing of “AI will take jobs” is wrong.

In order to actually debate this, you have to separate the job, from the task. What does this mean? Let’s use an example. The job of a software engineer is to build high quality software. A task of a software engineer is writing code in an IDE. AI may in fact automate one task of a job (ie automating writing code which will no longer be done manually), but it won’t replace the job - building high quality software.

Because there is more to the job than just one of its tasks. In fact, I’d argue AI will have the opposite impact! AI will make the task much easier, leading to an explosion of people doing the job! This isn’t anything novel (it’s a common claim to say AI tooling will lower the barrier to creating software, leading to lots more software created!). But I hadn’t heard it framed the way Jensen did - separating the job from the task.

What’s the common pushback to this? Well what if the one task represents a significant portion of the job! Saying software engineers are “software builders” is just putting lipstick on a pig! They’re really just code writers!” I get the pushback, but I think it misses something important. The hard part of being a software engineer was never the typing.

It was never the syntax. It's understanding the problem deeply enough to know what to build. It's knowing how to architect a system, how to make the right tradeoffs, how to debug the thing when it breaks in some way nobody anticipated. The code is the output (not the job). And look, maybe the skeptic is right that writing code is 60-70% of the time spent today.

Fine! But that just proves the point even more. If you can compress 70% of the time, you don't get rid of the person… you get that person shipping 3-4x more. And what does every company in the world want? More software. More tools. More internal apps. More automation. More everything. The demand for software is nowhere close to saturated. We've been supply constrained, not demand constrained. So when you make it much easier to supply software… you don't get fewer engineers. You get more. The nature of the software engineer job will change (probably a lot!). But the job itself? It gets bigger, not smaller.

Here’s a hypothetical example I like to use. Let’s say we existed in a world before cars were invented. And if you wanted to travel from your home to the grocery store you used a horse drawn carriage. Let’s call the person operating the carriage the chauffeur. Then, let’s assume some technological innovation happened EXTREMELY quickly, and all of a sudden cars were hitting the road (the key part of the analogy here is the part in all caps - this change happened QUICKLY, just like AI has).

A pretty pessimistic take may be “Ah! This is terrible! Think of all the chauffer’s who will loose their job!” But it’s pretty easy to see the world through a different lens. What it means to be a chauffer stays the same (you help people get from point A to point B). The task of a chauffer was operating a horse drawn carriage (and maintaining it, buying parts for it, etc). Now, the task of a chauffer changes! Their job is still helping people get from point A to point B. BUT the task changes - now they need to learn how to operate a vehicle (how to drive a manual transmission car) vs how to use the reins to help horses navigate.

And what happens in this world? We have way more chauffer’s because transportation has instantly become way more efficient (ie less productivity waste). At the same time, entire new industries are born servicing the automotive industry! Auto mechanics, oil and gas, auto manufacturers, etc.

Yes - the task of operating a horse drawn carriage, or manufacturing the carriage itself went away. But the job of a chauffer saw a spike in demand (leading to more employment), and a trickle down of job creation in adjacent industries.

I’m so convinced we’ll see the same thing happen with AI, and an explosion of employment is coming. And we do have some precedent to support this! ATMs came out in the late 1960’s. However, from that point in time to the mid 1980’s the number of bank tellers in the US doubled. Tellers went from cash-in / cash-out machines (the task) to relationship bankers who cross-sold financial products (the job).

The task got automated, but the job got more valuable. At the same time, the task got way cheaper! According to Claude: “Before ATMs, you needed ~21 tellers to staff a branch. After ATMs hit saturation, that dropped to ~13. So the cost per branch went down meaningfully.” Cheaper branches lead to more branches. And more branches led to more tellers (in aggregate). I asked Claude to chart the number of bank tellers in the US. What do you see, number of bank tellers exploding at the same time the ATM came out)

You could make a similar argument around lawyer growth in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s. The job of a lawyer is to protect and advance their client's interests, the some of the tasks include researching case law and drafting documents. Before the PC, a huge chunk of a lawyer’s time was spent on tasks that technology was about to automate. Legal research used to mean physically going to a law library, pulling case books off shelves, reading through indices, cross-referencing citations by hand. That could eat days or weeks. Then Westlaw (1975) and LexisNexis (late 70s) came along and compressed that to hours. Later, full-text search made it even faster.

Document drafting was similar. Contracts, briefs, motions - all typed up by hand or dictated to a secretary who typed them. Every revision meant retyping the whole thing. Word processors (and later PCs with WordPerfect / Word) made it so one lawyer could produce 5-10x the document output. So did things that automated the “tasks” of lawyers (PC, internet, LexisNexis, word processors, etc) lead to a reduction in the number of jobs held by lawyers? Here’s a chart from Claude:

I feel like there’s so many other examples I could use. Radiologists (this is an example Jensen uses). In 2016 Geoffrey Hinton (Godfather of Deep Learning!) predicted radiologists would go away because of AI. What happened? The job of a radiologist is patient care. The task is reading and interpreting scans. AI got really good at the task. But the job didn't shrink (it grew!). Because the demand for imaging exploded (more types of scans, more conditions screened for, aging population), and radiologists' job of providing patient care evolved toward more complex interpretive work, interventional procedures, and clinical consultation

The through line is the same: automating a task is not the same as automating a job. And more often than not, it leads to more of the job, not less. I expect AI to be no different.