Podcast appearances and mentions of Carl Benedikt Frey

In How Progress Ends: Technology, Innovation, and the Fate of Nations (Princeton UP, 2025), Carl Benedikt Frey challenges the conventional belief that economic and technological progress is inevitable. For most of human history, stagnation was the norm, and even today progress and prosperity in the world's largest, most advanced economies—the United States and China—have fallen short of expectations. To appreciate why we cannot depend on any AI-fueled great leap forward, Frey offers a remarkable and fascinating journey across the globe, spanning the past 1,000 years, to explain why some societies flourish and others fail in the wake of rapid technological change. By examining key historical moments—from the rise of the steam engine to the dawn of AI—Frey shows why technological shifts have shaped, and sometimes destabilized, entire civilizations. He explores why some leading technological powers of the past—such as Song China, the Dutch Republic, and Victorian Britain—ultimately lost their innovative edge, why some modern nations such as Japan had periods of rapid growth followed by stagnation, and why planned economies like the Soviet Union collapsed after brief surges of progress. Frey uncovers a recurring tension in history: while decentralization fosters the exploration of new technologies, bureaucracy is crucial for scaling them. When institutions fail to adapt to technological change, stagnation inevitably follows. Only by carefully balancing decentralization and bureaucracy can nations innovate and grow over the long term—findings that have worrying implications for the United States, Europe, China, and other economies today. Through a rich narrative that weaves together history, economics, and technology, How Progress Ends reveals that managing the future requires us to draw the right lessons from the past. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In How Progress Ends: Technology, Innovation, and the Fate of Nations (Princeton UP, 2025), Carl Benedikt Frey challenges the conventional belief that economic and technological progress is inevitable. For most of human history, stagnation was the norm, and even today progress and prosperity in the world's largest, most advanced economies—the United States and China—have fallen short of expectations. To appreciate why we cannot depend on any AI-fueled great leap forward, Frey offers a remarkable and fascinating journey across the globe, spanning the past 1,000 years, to explain why some societies flourish and others fail in the wake of rapid technological change. By examining key historical moments—from the rise of the steam engine to the dawn of AI—Frey shows why technological shifts have shaped, and sometimes destabilized, entire civilizations. He explores why some leading technological powers of the past—such as Song China, the Dutch Republic, and Victorian Britain—ultimately lost their innovative edge, why some modern nations such as Japan had periods of rapid growth followed by stagnation, and why planned economies like the Soviet Union collapsed after brief surges of progress. Frey uncovers a recurring tension in history: while decentralization fosters the exploration of new technologies, bureaucracy is crucial for scaling them. When institutions fail to adapt to technological change, stagnation inevitably follows. Only by carefully balancing decentralization and bureaucracy can nations innovate and grow over the long term—findings that have worrying implications for the United States, Europe, China, and other economies today. Through a rich narrative that weaves together history, economics, and technology, How Progress Ends reveals that managing the future requires us to draw the right lessons from the past. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

In How Progress Ends: Technology, Innovation, and the Fate of Nations (Princeton UP, 2025), Carl Benedikt Frey challenges the conventional belief that economic and technological progress is inevitable. For most of human history, stagnation was the norm, and even today progress and prosperity in the world's largest, most advanced economies—the United States and China—have fallen short of expectations. To appreciate why we cannot depend on any AI-fueled great leap forward, Frey offers a remarkable and fascinating journey across the globe, spanning the past 1,000 years, to explain why some societies flourish and others fail in the wake of rapid technological change. By examining key historical moments—from the rise of the steam engine to the dawn of AI—Frey shows why technological shifts have shaped, and sometimes destabilized, entire civilizations. He explores why some leading technological powers of the past—such as Song China, the Dutch Republic, and Victorian Britain—ultimately lost their innovative edge, why some modern nations such as Japan had periods of rapid growth followed by stagnation, and why planned economies like the Soviet Union collapsed after brief surges of progress. Frey uncovers a recurring tension in history: while decentralization fosters the exploration of new technologies, bureaucracy is crucial for scaling them. When institutions fail to adapt to technological change, stagnation inevitably follows. Only by carefully balancing decentralization and bureaucracy can nations innovate and grow over the long term—findings that have worrying implications for the United States, Europe, China, and other economies today. Through a rich narrative that weaves together history, economics, and technology, How Progress Ends reveals that managing the future requires us to draw the right lessons from the past. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science-technology-and-society

My fellow pro-growth/progress/abundance Up Wingers,For most of history, stagnation — not growth — was the rule. To explain why prosperity so often stalls, economist Carl Benedikt Frey offers a sweeping tour through a millennium of innovation and upheaval, showing how societies either harness — or are undone by — waves of technological change. His message is sobering: an AI revolution is no guarantee of a new age of progress.Today on Faster, Please! — The Podcast, I talk with Frey about why societies midjudge their trajectory and what it takes to reignite lasting growth.Frey is a professor of AI and Work at the Oxford Internet Institute and a fellow of Mansfield College, University of Oxford. He is the director of the Future of Work Programme and Oxford Martin Citi Fellow at the Oxford Martin School.He is the author of several books, including the brand new one, How Progress Ends: Technology, Innovation, and the Fate of Nations.In This Episode* The end of progress? (1:28)* A history of Chinese innovation (8:26)* Global competitive intensity (11:41)* Competitive problems in the US (15:50)* Lagging European progress (22:19)* AI & labor (25:46)Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversation. The end of progress? (1:28). . . once you exploit a technology, the processes that aid that run into diminishing returns, you have a lot of incumbents, you have some vested interests around established technologies, and you need something new to revive growth.Pethokoukis: Since 2020, we've seen the emergence of generative AI, mRNA vaccines, reusable rockets that have returned America to space, we're seeing this ongoing nuclear renaissance including advanced technologies, maybe even fusion, geothermal, the expansion of solar — there seems to be a lot cooking. Is worrying about the end of progress a bit too preemptive?Frey: Well in a way, it's always a bit too preemptive to worry about the future: You don't know what's going to come. But let me put it this way: If you had told me back in 1995 — and if I was a little bit older then — that computers and the internet would lead to a decade streak of productivity growth and then peter out, I would probably have thought you nuts because it's hard to think about anything that is more consequential. Computers have essentially given people the world's store of knowledge basically in their pockets. The internet has enabled us to connect inventors and scientists around the world. There are few tools that aided the research process more. There should hardly be any technology that has done more to boost scientific discovery, and yet we don't see it.We don't see it in the aggregate productivity statistics, so that petered out after a decade. Research productivity is in decline. Measures of breakthrough innovation is in decline. So it's always good to be optimistic, I guess, and I agree with you that, when you say AI and when you read about many of the things that are happening now, it's very, very exciting, but I remain somewhat skeptical that we are actually going to see that leading to a huge revival of economic growth.I would just be surprised if we don't see any upsurge at all, to be clear, but we do have global productivity stagnation right now. It's not just Europe, it's not just Britain. The US is not doing too well either over the past two decades or so. China's productivity is probably in the negative territory or stagnant, by more optimistic measures, and so we're having a growth problem.If tech progress were inevitable, why have predictions from the '90s, and certainly earlier decades like the '50s and '60s, about transformative breakthroughs and really fast economic growth by now, consistently failed to materialize? How does your thesis account for why those visions of rapid growth and progress have fallen short?I'm not sure if my thesis explains why those expectations didn't materialize, but I'm hopeful that I do provide some framework for thinking about why we've often seen historically rapid growth spurts followed by stagnation and even decline. The story I'm telling is not rocket science, exactly. It's basically built on the simple intuitions that once you exploit a technology, the processes that aid that run into diminishing returns, you have a lot of incumbents, you have some vested interests around established technologies, and you need something new to revive growth.So for example, the Soviet Union actually did reasonably well in terms of economic growth. A lot of it, or most of it, was centered on heavy industry, I should say. So people didn't necessarily see the benefits in their pockets, but the economy grew rapidly for about four decades or so, then growth petered out, and eventually it collapsed. So for exploiting mass-production technologies, the Soviet system worked reasonably well. Soviet bureaucrats could hold factory managers accountable by benchmarking performance across factories.But that became much harder when something new was needed because when something is new, what's the benchmark? How do you benchmark against that? And more broadly, when something is new, you need to explore, and you need to explore often different technological trajectories. So in the Soviet system, if you were an aircraft engineer and you wanted to develop your prototype, you could go to the red arm and ask for funding. If they turned you down, you maybe had two or three other options. If they turned you down, your idea would die with you.Conversely, in the US back in '99, Bessemer Venture declined to invest in Google, which seemed like a bad idea with the benefit of hindsight, but it also illustrates that Google was no safe bet at the time. Yahoo and Alta Vista we're dominating search. You need somebody to invest in order to know if something is going to catch on, and in a more decentralized system, you can have more people taking different bets and you can explore more technological trajectories. That is one of the reasons why the US ended up leading the computer revolutions to which Soviet contributions were basically none.Going back to your question, why didn't those dreams materialize? I think we've made it harder to explore. Part of the reason is protective regulation. Part of the reason is lobbying by incumbents. Part of the reason is, I think, a revolving door between institutions like the US patent office and incumbents where we see in the data that examiners tend to grant large firms some patents that are of low quality and then get lucrative jobs at those places. That's creating barriers to entry. That's not good for new startups and inventors entering the marketplace. I think that is one of the reasons that we haven't seen some of those dreams materialize.A history of Chinese innovation (8:26)So while Chinese bureaucracy enabled scale, Chinese bureaucracy did not really permit much in terms of decentralized exploration, which European fragmentation aided . . .I wonder if your analysis of pre-industrial China, if there's any lessons you can draw about modern China as far as the way in which bad governance can undermine innovation and progress?Pre-industrial China has a long history. China was the technology leader during the Song and Tang dynasties. It had a meritocratic civil service. It was building infrastructure on scales that were unimaginable in Europe at the time, and yet it didn't have an industrial revolution. So while Chinese bureaucracy enabled scale, Chinese bureaucracy did not really permit much in terms of decentralized exploration, which European fragmentation aided, and because there was lots of social status attached to becoming a bureaucrat and passing the civil service examination, if Galileo was born in China, he would probably become a bureaucrat rather than a scientist, and I think that's part of the reason too.But China mostly did well when the state was strong rather than weak. A strong state was underpinned by intensive political competition, and once China had unified and there were fewer peer competitors, you see that the center begins to fade. They struggle to tax local elites in order to keep the peace. People begin to erect monopolies in their local markets and collide with guilds to protect production and their crafts from competition.So during the Qing dynasty, China begins to decline, whereas we see the opposite happening in Europe. European fragmentation aids exploration and innovation, but it doesn't necessarily aid scaling, and so that is something that Europe needs to come to terms with at a later stage when the industrial revolution starts to take off. And even before that, market integration played an important role in terms of undermining the guilds in Europe, and so part of the reason why the guilds persist longer in China is the distance is so much longer between cities and so the guilds are less exposed to competition. In the end, Europe ends up overtaking China, in large part because vested interests are undercut by governments, but also because of investments in things that spur market integration.Global competitive intensity (11:41)Back in the 2000s, people predicted that China would become more like the United States, now it looks like the United States is becoming more like China.This is a great McKinsey kind of way of looking at the world: The notion that what drives innovation is sort of maximum competitive intensity. You were talking about the competitive intensity in both Europe and in China when it was not so centralized. You were talking about the competitive intensity of a fragmented Europe.Do you think that the current level of competitive intensity between the United States and China —and I really wish I could add Europe in there. Plenty of white papers, I know, have been written about Europe's competitive state and its in innovativeness, and I hope those white papers are helpful and someone reads them, but it seems to be that the real competition is between United States and China.Do you not think that that competitive intensity will sort of keep those countries progressing despite any of the barriers that might pop up and that you've already mentioned a little bit? Isn't that a more powerful tailwind than any of the headwinds that you've mentioned?It could be, I think, if people learn the right lessons from history, at least that's a key argument of the book. Right now, what I'm seeing is the United States moving more towards protectionist with protective tariffs. Right now, what I see is a move towards, we could even say crony capitalism with tariff exemptions that some larger firms that are better-connected to the president are able to navigate, but certainly not challengers. You're seeing the United States embracing things like golden shares in Intel, and perhaps even extending that to a range of companies. Back in the 2000s, people predicted that China would become more like the United States, now it looks like the United States is becoming more like China.And China today is having similar problems and on, I would argue, an even greater scale. Growth used to be the key objective in China, and so for local governments, provincial governments competing on such targets, it was fairly easy to benchmark and measure and hold provincial governors accountable, and they would be promoted inside the Communist Party based on meeting growth targets. Now, we have prioritized common prosperity, more national security-oriented concerns.And so in China, most progress has been driven by private firms and foreign-invested firms. State-owned enterprise has generally been a drag on innovation and productivity. What you're seeing, though, as China is shifting more towards political objectives, it's harder to mobilize private enterprise, where the yard sticks are market share and profitability, for political goals. That means that China is increasingly relying more again on state-owned enterprises, which, again, have been a drag on innovation.So, in principle, I agree with you that historically you did see Russian defeat to Napoleon leading to this Stein-Hardenberg Reforms, and the abolishment of Gilded restrictions, and a more competitive marketplace for both goods and ideas. You saw that Russian losses in the Crimean War led to the of abolition of serfdom, and so there are many times in history where defeat, in particular, led to striking reforms, but right now, the competition itself doesn't seem to lead to the kinds of reforms I would've hoped to see in response.Competitive problems in the US (15:50)I think what antitrust does is, at the very least, it provides a tool that means that businesses are thinking twice before engaging in anti-competitive behavior.I certainly wrote enough pieces and talked to enough people over the past decade who have been worried about competition in the United States, and the story went something like this: that you had these big tech companies — Google, and Meta, Facebook and Microsoft — that these were companies were what they would call “forever companies,” that they had such dominance in their core businesses, and they were throwing off so much cash that these were unbeatable companies, and this was going to be bad for America. People who made that argument just could not imagine how any other companies could threaten their dominance. And yet, at the time, I pointed out that it seemed to me that these companies were constantly in fear that they were one technological advance from being in trouble.And then lo and behold, that's exactly what happened. And while in AI, certainly, Google's super important, and Meta Facebook are super important, so are OpenAI, and so is Anthropic, and there are other companies.So the point here, after my little soliloquy, is can we overstate these problems, at least in the United States, when it seems like it is still possible to create a new technology that breaks the apparent stranglehold of these incumbents? Google search does not look quite as solid a business as it did in 2022.Can we overstate the competitive problems of the United States, or is what you're saying more forward-looking, that perhaps we overstated the competitive problems in the past, but now, due to these tariffs, and executives having to travel to the White House and give the president gifts, that that creates a stage for the kind of competitive problems that we should really worry about?I'm very happy to support the notion that technological changes can lead to unpredictable outcomes that incumbents may struggle to predict and respond to. Even if they predict it, they struggle to act upon it because doing so often undermines the existing business model.So if you take Google, where the transformer was actually conceived, the seven people behind it, I think, have since left the company. One of the reasons that they probably didn't launch anything like ChatGPT was probably for the fear of cannibalizing search. So I think the most important mechanisms for dislodging incumbents are dramatic shifts in technology.None of the legacy media companies ended up leading social media. None of the legacy retailers ended up leading e-commerce. None of the automobile leaders are leading in EVs. None of the bicycle companies, which all went into automobile, so many of them, ended up leading. So there is a pattern there.At the same time, I think you do have to worry that there are anti-competitive practices going on that makes it harder, and that are costly. The revolving door between the USPTO and companies is one example of that. We also have a reasonable amount of evidence on killer acquisitions whereby firms buy up a competitor just to shut it down. Those things are happening. I think you need to have tools that allow you to combat that, and I think more broadly, the United States has a long history of fairly vigorous antitrust policy. I think it'd be a hard pressed to suggest that that has been a tremendous drag on American business or American dynamism. So if you don't think, for example, that American antitrust policy has contributed to innovation and dynamism, at the very least, you can't really say either that it's been a huge drag on it.In Japan, for example, in its postwar history, antitrust was extremely lax. In the United States, it was very vigorous, and it was very vigorous throughout the computer revolution as well, which it wasn't at all in Japan. If you take the lawsuit against IBM, for example, you can debate this. To what extent did it force it to unbundle hardware and software, and would Microsoft been the company it is today without that? I think AT&T, it's both the breakup and it's deregulation, as well, but I think by basically all accounts, that was a good idea, particularly at the time when the National Science Foundation released ARPANET into the world.I think what antitrust does is, at the very least, it provides a tool that means that businesses are thinking twice before engaging in anti-competitive behavior. There's always a risk of antitrust being heavily politicized, and that's always been a bad idea, but at the same time, I think having tools on the books that allows you to check monopolies and steer their investments more towards the innovation rather than anti-competitive practices, I think is, broadly speaking, a good thing. I think in the European Union, you often hear that competition policy is a drag on productivity. I think it's the least of Europe's problem.Lagging European progress (22:19)If you take the postwar period, at least Europe catches up in most key industries, and actually lead in some of them. . . but doesn't do the same in digital. The question in my mind is: Why is that?Let's talk about Europe as we sort of finish up. We don't have to write How Progress Ends, it seems like progress has ended, so maybe we want to think about how progress restarts, and is the problem in Europe, is it institutions or is it the revealed preference of Europeans, that they're getting what they want? That they don't value progress and dynamism, that it is a cultural preference that is manifested in institutions? And if that's the case — you can tell me if that's not the case, I kind of feel like it might be the case — how do you restart progress in Europe since it seems to have already ended?The most puzzling thing to me is not that Europe is less dynamic than the United States — that's not very puzzling at all — but that it hasn't even managed to catch up in digital. If you take the postwar period, at least Europe catches up in most key industries, and actually lead in some of them. So in a way, take automobiles, electrical machinery, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, nobody would say that Europe is behind in those industries, or at least not for long. Europe has very robust catchup growth in the post-war period, but doesn't do the same in digital. The question in my mind is: Why is that?I think part of the reason is that the returns to innovation, the returns to scaling in Europe are relatively muted by a fragmented market in services, in particular. The IMF estimates that if you take all trade barriers on services inside the European Union and you add them up, it's something like 110 percent tariffs. Trump Liberation Day tariffs, essentially, imposed within European Union. That means that European firms in digital and in services don't have a harmonized market to scale into, the way the United States and China has. I think that's by far the biggest reason.On top of that, there are well-intentioned regulations like the GDPR that, by any account, has been a drag on innovation, and particularly been harmful for startups, whereas larger firms that find it easier to manage compliance costs have essentially managed to offset those costs by capturing a larger share of the market. I think the AI Act is going in the same direction there, ad so you have more hurdles, you have greater costs of innovating because of those regulatory barriers. And then the return to innovation is more capped by having a smaller, fragmented market.I don't think that culture or European lust for leisure rather than work is the key reason. I think there's some of that, but if you look at the most dynamic places in Europe, it tends to be the Scandinavian countries and, being from Sweden myself, I can tell you that most people you will encounter there are not workaholics.AI & labor (25:46)I think AI at the moment has a real resilience problem. It's very good that things where there's a lot of precedent, it doesn't do very well where precedence is thin.As I finish up, let me ask you: Like a lot of economists who think about technology, you've thought about how AI will affect jobs — given what we've seen in the past few years, would it be your guess that, if we were to look at the labor force participation rates of the United States and other rich countries 10 years from now, that we will look at those employment numbers and think, “Wow, we can really see the impact of AI on those numbers”? Will it be extraordinarily evident, or would it be not as much?Unless there's very significant progress in AI, I don't think so. I think AI at the moment has a real resilience problem. It's very good that things where there's a lot of precedent, it doesn't do very well where precedence is thin. So in most activities where the world is changing, and the world is changing every day, you can't really rely on AI to reliably do work for you.An example of that, most people know of AlphaGo beating the world champion back in 2016. Few people will know that, back in 2023, human amateurs, using standard laptops, exposing the best Go programs to new positions that they would not have encountered in training, actually beat the best Go programs quite easily. So even in a domain where basically the problem is solved, where we already achieved super-human intelligence, you cannot really know how well these tools perform when circumstances change, and I think that that's really a problem. So unless we solve that, I don't think it's going to have an impact that will mean that labor force participation is going to be significantly lower 10 years from now.That said, I do think it's going to have a very significant impact on white collar work, and people's income and sense of status. I think of generative AI, in particular, as a tool that reduces barriers to entry in professional services. I often compare it to what happened with Uber and taxi services. With the arrival of GPS technology, knowing the name of every street in New York City was no longer a particularly valuable skill, and then with a platform matching supply and demand, anybody could essentially get into their car who has a driver's license and top up their incomes on the side. As a result of that, incumbent drivers faced more competition, they took a pay cut of around 10 percent.Obviously, a key difference with professional services is that they're traded. So I think it's very likely that, as generative AI reduces the productivity differential between people in, let's say the US and the Philippines in financial modeling, in paralegal work, in accounting, in a host of professional services, more of those activities will shift abroad, and I think many knowledge workers that had envisioned prosperous careers may feel a sense of loss of status and income as a consequence, and I do think that's quite significant.On sale everywhere The Conservative Futurist: How To Create the Sci-Fi World We Were PromisedFaster, Please! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

Artificial intelligence promises to transform everything, yet it could also stall progress if we get it wrong.

Britain is desperate for stronger economic growth, and technological progress – notably through AI – is often touted as a route out of stagnation. After all, technological change is commonly thought to have been the main driver of economic growth throughout history. However, if that reading of technological change is far too simplistic, with progress in fact far stilted, what does that mean for our future economic prospects? In a groundbreaking new book, economist Carl Benedikt Frey looks back over the past millennium to show how technological change has driven growth, but also stagnation. Using these lessons from history, Carl then looks ahead to the impact of AI – whether it will really deliver the stronger economic growth we all crave, or what can be done to shape that change. The Resolution Foundation is hosting an in-person and interactive webinar to debate and answer the questions by Carl's new book. He will be joined by Resolution Foundation President Lord Willetts to discuss the impact of technical change on economic growth and living standards, and what policy makers can do to shape that change in a positive direction.

This and all episodes at: https://aiandyou.net/ .     "The book seems to be more timely than originally anticipated."  I'm talking with Carl Benedikt Frey about his new book, How Progress Ends: Technology, Innovation, and the Fate of Nations, and its exploration of the political and economic effects of policies like tariffs and university defunding comes at a very critical time. AI is projected to have enormous economic and social impacts that call for the biggest of big picture thinking, and Frey is the co-author of the 2013 study The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerization, which has received over 12,000 citations. He is Associate Professor of AI and Work at the Oxford Internet Institute and Director and Founder of the Future of Work Programme at the Oxford Martin School, both at the University of Oxford. His 2019 book, The Technology Trap: Capital, Labor, and Power in the Age of Automation, was selected as a Financial Times Best Book of the Year and awarded Princeton University's Richard A. Lester Prize.   In the conclusion, we talk about the links between innovation and industry productivity, why AI hasn't yet delivered broad gains, automation's uneven effects on workers, the role of antitrust in sustaining competition, and the need for institutions like Oxford to adapt. All this plus our usual look at today's AI headlines. Transcript and URLs referenced at HumanCusp Blog.            

It's the most curious paradox of today's digital revolution. While the computers, the internet, smartphones and AI all appear magical, they haven't actually translated into equally magical economic progress. That, at least, is the counter-intuitive argument of the Oxford economist Carl Benedikt Frey whose new book, How Progress Ends, suggests that the digital revolution isn't resulting in an equivalent revolution of productivity. History is repeating itself in an equally paradoxical way, Frey warns. We may, indeed, be repeating the productivity stagnation of the 1970s, in spite of our technological marvels. Unlike the 19th-century industrial revolution that radically transformed how we work, today's digital tools—however impressive—are primarily automating existing processes rather than creating fundamentally new types of economic activity that drive broad-based growth. And AI, by making existing work easier rather than creating new industries, will only compound this paradox. It might be the fate of not just the United States and Europe, but China as well. That, Frey warns, is how all progress will end.1. The Productivity Paradox is Real Despite revolutionary digital technologies, we're not seeing the productivity gains that past technological revolutions delivered. It took a century for steam to show its full economic impact, four decades for electricity—but even accounting for lag time, the computer revolution has underperformed economically compared to its transformative social effects.2. Automation vs. Innovation: The Critical Distinction True progress comes from creating entirely new industries and types of work, not just automating existing processes. The mid-20th century boom created the automobile industry and countless supporting sectors. Today's AI primarily makes existing work easier rather than spawning fundamentally new economic activities.3. Institutional Structure Trumps Technology The Soviet Union succeeded when scaling existing technology but failed when innovation was needed because it lacked decentralized exploration. Success requires competitive, decentralized systems where different actors can take different bets—like Google finding funding after Bessemer Ventures said no.4. Europe's Innovation Crisis Has a Clear Diagnosis Europe lags in digital not due to lack of talent or funding, but because of fragmented markets and regulatory burdens. The EU's internal trade barriers in services amount to a 110% tariff equivalent, while regulations like GDPR primarily benefit large incumbents who can absorb compliance costs.5. Geography Still Matters in the Digital Age Silicon Valley's success stemmed from unenforceable non-compete clauses that enabled job-hopping and knowledge transfer, while Detroit's enforcement of non-competes after 1985 contributed to its decline. As AI makes many services tradeable globally, high-cost innovation centers face new competitive pressures from lower-cost locations.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Many people expect improvements in technology over the next few years, but fewer people are optimistic about improvements in the economy. Especially in Europe, there's a narrative that productivity has stalled, that the welfare state is over-stretched, and that the regions of the world where innovation will be rewarded are the US and China – although there are lots of disagreements about which of these two countries will gain the upper hand.To discuss these topics, our guest in this episode is Carl Benedikt Frey, the Dieter Schwarz Associate Professor of AI & Work at the Oxford Internet Institute. Carl is also a Fellow at Mansfield College, University of Oxford, and is Director of the Future of Work Programme and Oxford Martin Citi Fellow at the Oxford Martin School.Carl's new book has the ominous title, “How Progress Ends”. The subtitle is “Technology, Innovation, and the Fate of Nations”. A central premise of the book is that our ability to think clearly about the possibilities for progress and stagnation today is enhanced by looking backward at the rise and fall of nations around the globe over the past thousand years. The book contains fascinating analyses of how countries at various times made significant progress, and at other times stagnated. The book also considers what we might deduce about the possible futures of different economies worldwide.Selected follow-ups:Professor Carl-Benedikt Frey - Oxford Martin SchoolHow Progress Ends: Technology, Innovation, and the Fate of Nations - Princeton University PressStop Acting Like This Is Normal - Ezra Klein ("Stop Funding Trump's Takeover")OpenAI o3 Breakthrough High Score on ARC-AGI-PubA Human Amateur Beat a Top Go-Playing AI Using a Simple Trick - ViceThe future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? - Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael A. OsborneEurope's Choice: Policies for Growth and Resilience - Alfred Kammer, IMFMIT Radiation Laboratory ("Rad Lab")Music: Spike Protein, by Koi Discovery, available under CC0 1.0 Public Domain Declaration

In How Progress Ends: Technology, Innovation, and the Fate of Nations, Carl Benedikt Frey argues that progress, throughout history, has not just depended on technological innovations but also on the flexibility of our institutions.Frey is the associate professor of AI & Work at the University of Oxford, where he directs the Future of Work program. In his new book, he explores how technological progress has unfolded throughout history, from the Qin Dynasty to Silicon Valley. He argues that progress is always fragile, resting on achieving a delicate balance between decentralized innovation and centralized scaling of new technologies.In his conversation with Adam Job, senior director at the BCG Henderson Institute, he discusses how to achieve institutional flexibility, the hurdles we must overcome to turn AI into progress, and what lessons history holds for business leaders looking to navigate the conundrum of innovating versus scaling.Key topics discussed: 01:15 | The fragility of progress05:35 | The role of decentralization and centralization11:24 | How to achieve institutional flexibility17:29 | The hurdles to overcome for turning AI into progress21:04 | How business leaders can navigate the conundrum of innovating vs. scaling25:00 | Why progress might not yet endAdditional inspirations from Carl Benedikt Frey:The Technology Trap: Capital, Labor, and Power in the Age of Automation (Princeton University Press, 2019)

New inventions often cause great excitement yet can take years to catch on. In this episode of The Big View podcast, Peter Thal Larsen talks to Carl Benedikt Frey of Oxford University about the erratic history of technology – and what it tells us about artificial intelligence. Visit the Thomson Reuters Privacy Statement for information on our privacy and data protection practices. You may also visit megaphone.fm/adchoices to opt-out of targeted advertising. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This and all episodes at: https://aiandyou.net/ .     "The book seems to be more timely than originally anticipated."  I'm talking with Carl Benedikt Frey about his new book, How Progress Ends: Technology, Innovation, and the Fate of Nations, and its exploration of the political and economic effects of policies like tariffs and university defunding comes at a very critical time. AI is projected to have enormous economic and social impacts that call for the biggest of big picture thinking, and Frey is the co-author of the 2013 study The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerization, which has received over 12,000 citations. He is Associate Professor of AI and Work at the Oxford Internet Institute and Director and Founder of the Future of Work Programme at the Oxford Martin School, both at the University of Oxford. His 2019 book, The Technology Trap: Capital, Labor, and Power in the Age of Automation, was selected as a Financial Times Best Book of the Year and awarded Princeton University's Richard A. Lester Prize.   We talk about whether progress is inevitable, how growth depends on the interplay of technology and institutions, the link between productivity and innovation, the importance of institutional flexibility and decentralized funding, the effects of tariffs, the risks of China's increasingly centralized model, and why the US and China are both triggering declining dynamism in each other. All this plus our usual look at today's AI headlines. Transcript and URLs referenced at HumanCusp Blog.            

As tech innovation, particularly in the field of AI, is increasingly focused on a few key players, the industries benefiting from these tools have also become more concentrated, which Carl Benedikt Frey says could weigh on growth. Frey is an associate professor of AI and Work at Oxford University, and his latest book, How Progress Ends, suggests that waves of technological and economic progress are often followed by stagnation. In this podcast, Frey says the concentration of AI-using industries will push the direction of technological change further towards automation rather than product innovation. Transcript: http://bit.ly/45Z1IbR  Read the article in Finance & Development magazine: imf.org/fandd

On Sept. 4, 2024, Me, Myself, and AI host Sam Ransbotham moderated a panel discussion at a Georgetown University/World Bank event, Jobs in the Age of AI. Afterward, he interviewed keynote speaker Carl Benedikt Frey, Dieter Schwarz Associate Professor of AI and Work at the Oxford Internet Institute, and panelist Karin Kimbrough, LinkedIn's chief economist. In this bonus episode recorded during this discussion, hear from Frey and Kimbrough about how artificial intelligence is impacting workers, labor trends, and the economy. Read the episode transcript here. For further information: Watch sessions from the AI in Action event on demand. Access on-demand recordings from all prior AI in Action events. Read event organizers Timothy DeStefano and Jonathan Timmis's paper, “Do Capital Incentives Distort Technology Diffusion? Evidence on Cloud, Big Data, and AI.” Me, Myself, and AI is a collaborative podcast from MIT Sloan Management Review and Boston Consulting Group and is hosted by Sam Ransbotham and Shervin Khodabandeh. Our engineer is David Lishansky, and the coordinating producers are Allison Ryder and Alanna Hooper. Stay in touch with us by joining our LinkedIn group, AI for Leaders at mitsmr.com/AIforLeaders or by following Me, Myself, and AI on LinkedIn. We encourage you to rate and review our show. Your comments may be used in Me, Myself, and AI materials.

Carl Benedikt Frey forscht zu KI und Arbeit. In dieser Folge spricht er darüber, warum sich oft Höherqualifizierte gegen KI im Job einsetzen.

The fear of AI taking our jobs has been buzzing for years, but it's not a new conversation. Technology has been shaking up industries and displacing workers since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.In this episode, Greg sits down with Carl Benedikt Frey, the Dieter Schwarz Associate Professor of AI & Work at the Oxford Internet Institute, to dive deep into these shifts. As the Director of the Future of Work Programme and author of The Technology Trap, Frey sheds light on the historical and current impacts of automation, the Industrial Revolution, and the role of political power in technological progress. Together, they explore who wins and loses in the AI era and what history can teach us about the future. *unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.*Episode Quotes:Will AI drive long-term productivity or just short-term automation?46:21: If all that AI is about is automation, then the future of productivity simply depends on the potential scope of automation, so to speak, and that will then eventually peter off. Whereas if it's about creating new tasks, new products, and new innovations, then it can be more sustained, right? And I think that's a key reason that the second industrial revolution lasted for a very long period of time: it created a host of entirely new types of economic activities. And so I think a key question going forward is: can we design our institutions to help make sure that AI is more being used to create new activities? I think it's likely to have a much more sustained impact on productivity growth going forward.Starting from the past to predict the future03:07: If you want to say that the future is likely to be very different from the past, then at the very least, I think we should be able to state why. So I think history should always be our starting point. On the race between technology and education39:18: The race between technology and education is a world in which everybody is better off, right? That has not been the case. So we need to somehow modify that model of the world, and what we've seen since the 1980s, in particular across advanced economies, but also in some emerging economies, is labor market polarization and the decline of middle-income jobs, right? And so the race between technology and education and the view of technological change does not explain that part of the story, right? That's sort of the task-based view, and things like replacing versus enabling technologies do have some explanatory power.Should we be thinking of this new revolution as being more like the first  than the second?44:22: I think it is more like the first industrial revolution. And I still think that I can't think of a single AI application that is not about automation or doing something that people are already doing a bit more productively, whether it's writing, coding, or image generation. Show Links:Recommended Resources:Engels' pauseLudditesGuest Profile:Faculty Profile at Oxford Martin SchoolCarl Benedikt FreyCarl Benedikt Frey (@carlbfrey) / XHis Work:The Technology Trap: Capital, Labor, and Power in the Age of Automation

A decade ago, there were predictions that certain accounting jobs would be replaced by automation. Now, in the age of AI, we're still here and thriving. Today's conversation focuses on how we can collaborate with technology to enhance our work and deliver greater value to clients. To delve into this topic, I spoke with Andrew Hatfield, Co-Founder and Chief Growth Officer of SafeSend, a long-time partner of MACPA. He and his team have released a paper discussing the role of AI, the importance of strengthening tech stacks in accounting firms, the shift from e-sign to e-file, the benefits of integrations and APIs, and the concept of a "single pane of glass"—a unified management console displaying data from multiple sources. Andrew and I discussed how client expectations have evolved, and how the technologies and predictions in SafeSend's paper can improve relationships between firms and their clients, as well as the CPA's role in this transformation.Resources:SafeSend paper, "Top 7 Predictions for Tax Automation in 2024" by Andrew Hatfield & teamSafeSendAndrew Hatfield LinkedIn ProfileOxford Martin School article, "The Future of Employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation?" by Carl Benedikt Frey & Michael OsborneThomson Reuters report, "2024 generative AI in professional services"CPA Practice Advisor article, "Most Tax Pros, Corporate and Public, Believe AI Should Be in Their Toolbox" by Isaac M. O'Bannon

Todas las épocas de innovación tecnológica disruptiva han traído consigo profundos cambios sociales y en el mercado de trabajo. En la revolución que estamos viviendo en la actualidad debemos utilizar nuestro sistema educativo y de bienestar para ayudar a la población a adaptarse a estas nuevas tecnologías digitales, porque si no es así, no vamos a ser capaces de adaptarnos a esta transformación, y vamos a perder no sólo puestos de trabajo, sino la sociedad tal y como la conocemos. #enlighted #ia #innovación #habilidades #tecnología Más información en: https://www.enlighted.education

Artificial Intelligence has made new inroads into areas of work that were reserved exclusively for humans: conversational interaction, pattern recognition & prediction, and writing & teaching. We discuss with Carl Benedikt Frey about the implications of AI technologies for labor market outcomes going forward. Carl Benedikt is the Dieter Schwarz Associate Professor of AI & Work at the Oxford Internet Institute and the Director of the Future of Work Program at the Oxford Martin School.

As artificial intelligence becomes more and more advanced, fears are growing about companies replacing human staff with computers. Businesses from energy providers to car makers are already using AI, but are there some jobs it can't do? Sky's science and technology editor, Tom Clarke, has tested if AI could do his job by creating an AI news reporter. On the Sky News Daily, Sally Lockwood is joined by Tom and YouTuber and coder Kris Fagerlie to find out how they built the AI reporter. Plus, she speaks to Carl Benedikt Frey, associate professor of AI & Work at Oxford's Internet Institute, about how advancements in AI technology could change the types of tasks we do at work. Podcast producer: Rosie Gillott Interviews producer: Alex Edden Editor: Paul Stanworth

In March of this year, auroras were seen in many places on earth.  Though the auroras are usually seen far up north on the globe they can occur further south.  But what are the risks associated with this kind of event?  “The Technology Trap” by Carl Benedikt Frey looks at how the history of technology can help us better understand economic and political polarization in the age of automation.  Darren gives us a review. 

Ep 131 | Carlos Carreño UX Product Lead en Banco Santander, Behavioral Designer y UX-PM level 3 certified pasa por el podcast luego de 3 años para hablar sobre cómo las nuevas tecnologías como la Inteligencia Artificial podrían impactar en nuestra disciplina

» Die Themen der Folge 194: --- (00:05:55) » Elon kauft Twitter und mögliche Konsequenzen https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/06/technology/elon-musk-twitter-pitch-deck.amp.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/28/business/twitter-elon-musk.html https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-where-did-tweeters-go-twitter-is-losing-its-most-active-users-internal-2022-10-25/ https://www.theverge.com/2022/10/30/23431931/twitter-paid-verification-elon-musk-blue-monthly-subscription https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/30/technology/elon-musk-twitter-debt.html https://techcrunch.com/2022/10/28/gm-pauses-paid-advertising-on-twitter-as-chief-twit-elon-musk-takes-ownership/ (00:16:35) » Twitter, free speech https://www.theverge.com/2022/10/28/23428132/elon-musk-twitter-acquisition-problems-speech-moderation (00:26:57) » Quartalszahlen https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/28/why-investors-rewarded-apple-but-fled-amazon-google-facebook-after-earnings.html https://m.faz.net/aktuell/finanzen/amazon-alphabet-oder-meta-verlieren-fast-1000-milliarden-dollar-in-einer-woche-18421943.html https://www.vox.com/recode/2022/10/29/23429085/big-tech-boom-over-wall-street-stock-meta-amazon-google-alphabet-apple https://twitter.com/almarrone/status/1583415042472816641?s=46&t=bjYYL9cV0vpNJjYUJr14qw (00:40:15) » Apple https://twitter.com/almarrone/status/1584797628675629057?s=46&t=bjYYL9cV0vpNJjYUJr14qw (00:49:25) » Entwicklung E- und Q-Commerce https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/10/instant-grocery-delivery-startup-issues/671927/ https://twitter.com/almarrone/status/1584903056122159106?s=46&t=bjYYL9cV0vpNJjYUJr14qw https://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/handel-konsumgueter/e-commerce-online-babybedarfshaendler-windeln-de-meldet-insolvenz-an/28776792.html https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/made-com-suspends-customer-orders-102000176.html (00:53:43) » Autonomes Fahren https://www.reuters.com/legal/exclusive-tesla-faces-us-criminal-probe-over-self-driving-claims-sources-2022-10-26/ https://twitter.com/tweetermeyer/status/1585345011583188992?s=46&t=pkq-R3_P2TZTahAjsiyGIw https://www.autoweek.com/news/technology/a41789388/argo-ai-autonomous-developer-shutdown/ https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/vw-volkswagen-und-ford-geben-aus-fuer-gemeinsames-roboterauto-projekt-bekannt-a-8394165f-ccad-4136-ade1-a1e106192d20 (00:58:23) » AI (01:03:57) » Jasper https://techcrunch.com/2022/10/18/ai-content-platform-jasper-raises-125m-at-a-1-7b-valuation/ (01:07:30) » Buchempfehlung https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Carl-Benedikt-Frey/dp/069117279X

Remote work seems to be well suited for some kinds of knowledge work, but it's less clear that it's well suited for the kind of collaborative creativity that results in breakthrough innovations. A series of new papers suggests breakthrough innovation by distributed teams has traditionally been quite difficult, but also that things have changed, possibly dramatically, as remote collaboration technology has improved.This podcast is an audio read through of the (initial draft of the) post Remote Breakthroughs, originally published on New Things Under the Sun.Articles MentionedVan der Wouden, Frank. 2020. A history of collaboration in US invention: changing patters of co-invention, complexity and geography. Industrial and Corporate Change 29(3): 599-619. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtz058Lin, Yiling, Carl Benedikt Frey, and Lingfei Wu. 2022. Remote collaboration fuses fewer breakthrough ideas. arXiv:2206.01878. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2206.01878Lin, Yiling, James A. Evans, and Lingfei Wu. 2022. New directions in science emerge from disconnection and discord. Journal of Informetrics 16(1): 101234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2021.101234Berkes, Enrico, and Ruben Gaetani. 2021. The Geography of Unconventional Innovation. The Economic Journal131(636): 1466-1514. https://doi.org/10.1093/ej/ueaa111Duede, Eamon, Misha Teplitskiy, Karim Lakhani, and James Evans. 2021. Being Together in Place as a Catalyst for Scientific Advance. arXiv:2107.04165. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2107.04165Frey, Carl Benedikt, and Giorgio Presidente. 2022. Disrupting Science. Working Paper.Esposito, Christopher. 2021. The Geography of Breakthrough Innovation in the United States over the 20th Century. Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography 2126. Working paper.

“Occupations paying less than 20 dollars per hour are most at risk to be replaced by technology.”How do you heighten your chances of making money for rent in the future? Carl Benedikt Frey suggests creativity, social intelligence and the abilities to perceive and manipulate will be central skills. These particular skills are still proving hard to automate through Artificial Intelligence. So how do we build and strengthen these skills? Does our education system and social environments support these learning processes? Who does not have access to this type of learning? Will we even need money for rent in the future? What can we build with our creativity, if we do not need to work to pay for a place to live?

KARMASUTRA : Nouvelle édition du livre best-seller disponible partout en France !► https://bysteve.net/karmasutraL'Intelligence artificielle dans sa définition stricte est « l'ensemble des théories et des techniques mises en œuvre en vue de réaliser des machines capables de simuler l'intelligence humaine. »En regardant de plus près, la réalité semble plus sombre.En effet, dans le plus grand secret, l'intelligence artificielle et la robotique se préparent à prendre votre place. Ils ne cessent de se perfectionner grâce aux multiples mises à jour dans leurs programmes. Prévenez-vos enfants dès maintenant…d'ici 30 ans, 50% des emplois seront tenus par des robots selon Carl Benedikt Frey et Michael A. Osborne, deux chercheurs reconnus de l'université de Oxford.Pourquoi ? Parce qu'ils travaillent plus longtemps, ne sont pas payés, ne se révoltent pas; n'ont pas de congés, ne font pas d'enfants; et ne perdent pas de temps sur leur téléphone ou à la machine à café.

⁃ El Banco Mundial en el 2020 reporta que México se encuentra en el lugar 120 de 190 en el indicador “pago de impuestos y contribuciones” que mide la carga administrativa que suponen estos pagos y lo que ocurre después de haberlos realizado, estando mejor posicionados que nosotros países como: Sudáfrica, El Salvador, Uganda, Guatemala, entre otros.⁃ México se encuentra fuera del ranking de Kearney sobre el índice de confianza de atracción de Inversión Extranjera Directa (IED), en este ranking se califica a los 25 países más atractivos en el mundo para la inversión., nuestro país en el año 2017 y 2018 se encontró en el lugar 17, en el 2019 en 25, para el 2020 ya estamos fuera del indice.⁃ De acuerdo con la OCDE en cuanto al rubro de ingresos fiscales como porcentaje del PIB, identificamos a Francia, Dinamarca y Bélgica en los 3 primeros lugares con un 46.1%, 44.9% y 44.8%, respectivamente, por su parte México se encuentra al final de la tabla con un 16.1%⁃ De acuerdo con los resultados trimestrales más recientes de la Encuesta Nacional de Ocupación y Empleo, realizada por el Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI).En el primer trimestre de 2021 fue de 29.2 millones, cifra que representa el 55.1% de la población ocupada del país. La tasa de informalidad en las localidades rurales fue de 77.3% en el primer trimestre de 2021, mientras que en las localidades más urbanizadas fue de 42.5%. ⁃ El desarrollo de la robótica y la inteligencia artificial transformará las profesiones y ocupaciones, aplicando la metodología desarrollada por Carl Benedikt Frey y Michael Osborne, del Programa Oxford Martin sobre Tecnología y Empleo, el Banco Mundial estimó que el porcentaje en Estados Unidos amenaza aproximadamente al 47% de toda la fuerza laboral, mientras que en México supera el 59% incluyendo muchas de las típicamente consideradas "de cuello blanco". ⁃ En México contamos con 80.6 millones de usuarios de internet y 86.5 millones de usuarios de teléfonos celulares de acuerdo con La Encuesta Nacional sobre Disponibilidad y Uso de Tecnologías de la Información en los Hogares 2019, el 76.6% de la población urbana es usuaria de internet, en la zona rural la población usuaria se ubica en 47.7 por ciento, de los hogares del país, 44.3% dispone de computadora.

Remote work may have been the norm during the COVID-19 pandemic, but has its limitations when it comes to innovating through collaboration. Tune into part three of our three-part podcast series ‘Redesigning Work for the Post-pandemic Age' where Oxford University's Carl Benedikt Frey, acclaimed author and economist joins Ben Pring, Co-founder and Director of Cognizant's Center for the Future of Work and Mariesa Coughanour, AVP & Head of Cognizant's Intelligent Automation Advisory practice, discuss the difference between onsite and distributed IT development, the demise of traditional offices and the upcoming automation wave.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted a skill-based technology bias where work that could be done remotely remained unhindered during lockdowns while a few others were at a disadvantage. Tune into part two of our three-part podcast series ‘Redesigning Work for the Post-pandemic Age' where Oxford University's Carl Benedikt Frey, acclaimed author and economist joins Ben Pring, Co-founder and Director of Cognizant's Center for the Future of Work and Mariesa Coughanour, AVP & Head of Cognizant's Intelligent Automation Advisory practice, discuss the technology-induced inequalities in the labor market, the upcoming productivity boost from automation and its impact on IT innovation.

The definition of work has completely changed since the COVID-19 mainstreamed remote working. The emergence of automation, AI, robotics and machine learning has also redefined work, efficiency, innovation and what it will take for businesses to thrive in future. Tune into part one of our three-part podcast series ‘Redesigning Work for the Post-pandemic Age' where Oxford University's Carl Benedikt Frey, acclaimed author and economist joins Ben Pring, who leads Cognizant's Center for the Future of Work and Mariesa Coughanour, AVP & Head of Cognizant's Intelligent Automation Advisory practice, discuss the need for humans to effectively and productively co-exist with software robots and how the widespread deployment of automation technologies will help businesses succeed in the post-pandemic era.

The Technology Trap: Capital, Labor, and Power in the Age of Automation by Carl Benedikt Frey How the history of technological revolutions can help us better understand economic and political polarization in the age of automation From the Industrial Revolution to the age of artificial intelligence, The Technology Trap takes a sweeping look at the history of technological progress and […] The post Chris Voss Podcast – The Technology Trap: Capital, Labor, and Power in the Age of Automation by Carl Benedikt Frey appeared first on Chris Voss Official Website.

There is an inordinate amount of hype and fear around artificial intelligence these days, as a chorus of scholars, luminaries, media, and politicians nervously project that it could soon take our jobs and subjugate or even kills us off. Others are just as fanciful in hoping it is on the verge of solving all our problems. But the truth is AI isn’t nearly as advanced as most people imagine. What is the practical reality of AI today, and how should government approach AI policy to maximize its potential? To parse the hype, the hope, and the path forward for AI, Rob and Jackie sat down recently with Pedro Domingos, emeritus professor of computer science at the University of Washington and author of The Master Algorithm.Mentioned:Pedro Domingos, The Master Algorithm: How the Quest for the Ultimate Learning Machine Will Remake Our World (Basic Books, 2015).Robert D. Atkinson, “The 2015 ITIF Luddite Award Nominees: The Worst of the Year’s Worst Innovation Killers” (ITIF, December 2015).Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (Oxford University Press, 1990).Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael A. Osbourne, “The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerisation?” (University of Oxford, September 17, 2013).Michael McLaughlin and Daniel Castro, “The Critics Were Wrong: NIST Data Shows the Best Facial Recognition Algorithms Are Neither Racist Nor Sexist” (ITIF, January 2020).“The Case for Killer Robots,” ITIF Innovation Files podcast with Robert Marks, August 10, 2020.

Technology will displace 47% of all jobs, said Dr Carl Benedikt Frey in a study he co-wrote called The Future Of Employment – a paper so influential that it's at the centre of jobs policy for governments across the world. But what will replace those jobs? Will anything replace them?In his new book The Technology Trap Dr Frey describes how the same job destruction and extremes of poverty and great wealth that took place in the Industrial Revolution are happening all over again thanks to artificial intelligence and Big Data. So how will we work in the future? Should we celebrate the end of boring, repetitive jobs? And how can we plan for jobs of tomorrow when we can't even conceptualise them?“The scale of jobs that are replaceable by technology – but that's only a part of the question”“Machines perform poorly in creative or social tasks. That's where most new jobs will be created.”Presented by Alex Andreou. Produced by Andrew Harrison. Assistant producers Jacob Archbold and Jelena Sofronijevic. Music by Kenny Dickinson. Audio production by Alex Rees. THE BUNKER is a Podmasters Production See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Susan Lund, partner at McKinsey & Company and leader of the McKinsey Global Institute, and Carl Benedikt Frey, Oxford Martin Citi fellow at the University of Oxford, and author of The Technology Trap, join Ellie Groves, deputy head of programming and Europe manager at OMFIF, to discuss the impact of Covid-19 in accelerating the shift to remote working, the barriers encountered by governments and businesses, as well as potential solutions for an easier transition.

＊本集節目於臺北廣播電臺 110年1月21日晚上9點至9點半播出＊ 本書透過研究西方世界，講述全球技術發展的一部分。另一方面，從亞洲（尤其是中國）不斷增長的經濟實力來看，則有著相當不一樣的走向。在亞洲，數百萬人因為技術創新擺脫貧困，自動化被視為人口老化後提高生產力的手段，然而如果從《技術陷阱》的思考架構來看，可能意味著中國的專制將使他們在在科技大戰中取得領先，而選民利益優先的西方民主國家，可能會在大規模部署科技技術時踩煞車，只能迂迴透過如反壟斷聽證會等方式，收攏民間的科技力量。 《技術陷阱》特別著眼於政治如何受到產經影響，並且指出應該從什麼角度切入著手，才能將損害減到最低，這是當前臺灣產業發展下，除了技術之外，極需的思維與歷史知識。 -以上內容節錄自博客來網路書店-

＊本集節目於臺北廣播電臺 110年1月20日晚上9點至9點半播出＊ 本書透過研究西方世界，講述全球技術發展的一部分。另一方面，從亞洲（尤其是中國）不斷增長的經濟實力來看，則有著相當不一樣的走向。在亞洲，數百萬人因為技術創新擺脫貧困，自動化被視為人口老化後提高生產力的手段，然而如果從《技術陷阱》的思考架構來看，可能意味著中國的專制將使他們在在科技大戰中取得領先，而選民利益優先的西方民主國家，可能會在大規模部署科技技術時踩煞車，只能迂迴透過如反壟斷聽證會等方式，收攏民間的科技力量。 《技術陷阱》特別著眼於政治如何受到產經影響，並且指出應該從什麼角度切入著手，才能將損害減到最低，這是當前臺灣產業發展下，除了技術之外，極需的思維與歷史知識。 -以上內容節錄自博客來網路書店-

"Tecnología Artística" por Fede Gaumet | http://fedegaumet.com | https://willrobotstakemyjob.com/ . Podcast semanales por Youtube, Fbk+Ins @fedegaumet y mi web . En 2013, Carl Benedikt Frey y Michael A. Osborne publicaron un informe titulado "El futuro del empleo: ¿cuán susceptibles son los trabajos a la informatización?" Los autores examinan a través de una web en constante actualización implementando una metodología novedosa para estimar la probabilidad de informatización para 702 ocupaciones detalladas, utilizando un clasificador de procesos gaussiano. Según sus estimaciones, alrededor del 47 por ciento del empleo total de los Estados Unidos está en riesgo. Aunque el informe es específico para el mercado laboral de los Estados Unidos, es fácil ver cómo esto podría aplicarse en todo el mundo. Los investigadores y desarrolladores extrajeron los trabajos y la probabilidad de automatización del informe y hemos facilitado la búsqueda de su trabajo. Agregaron información adicional de la Oficina de Estadísticas Laborales para proporcionar información adicional sobre los trabajos. No hay que caer en pánico ya que las estadísticas son reflejo de un proceso en marcha y la adaptación social es paulatina y lejos de toda mirada apocalíptica. Por lo tanto es necesaria un flujo de información y formación para que en el proceso no queden sectores de la sociedad relegados o fuera de la actualización laboral futura. . Podcast semanales por Youtube, Fbk+Ins @fedegaumet y mi web https://www.tecnologiaartistica.com . #artetecnologico #tecnologiaartistica #podcast #radioonline #fedegaumet #ia #inteligenciaartificial #podcasting #podcasts #podcastvivo #podcaster #radio #musictechnology #musicatecnologica #musictech #podcasters #podcastshow #tecnologiayarte #nuevopodcast #artedigital #digital #logaritmos #artecontecnologia #digital #musicaelectronica #electronica #pensamientoabstracto #modelo #interactivo #mit #imagenytecnologia #contemporaneo #artecontemporaneo

In this interview, I speak to Carl Benedikt Frey about his new book ’The Technology Trap’ to discuss the impact of automation on the economy, society and employment.If you would like more information on this topic, please feel free to visit my website and sign up for content updates! I write articles every week on various different topics such as Big Data, AI and Key Performance Indicators.Visit the Early Tech Innovations topic page here: https://bernardmarr.com/default.asp?c...

The Technology Trap: Capital, Labor, and Power in the Age of Automation by Carl Benedikt Frey How the history of technological revolutions can help us better understand economic and political polarization in the age of automation From the Industrial Revolution to the age of artificial intelligence, The Technology Trap takes a sweeping look at the history of technological progress and how it has radically shifted the distribution of economic and political power among society’s members. As Carl Benedikt Frey shows, the Industrial Revolution created unprecedented wealth and prosperity over the long run, but the immediate consequences of mechanization were devastating for large swaths of the population. Middle-income jobs withered, wages stagnated, the labor share of income fell, profits surged, and economic inequality skyrocketed. These trends, Frey documents, broadly mirror those in our current age of automation, which began with the Computer Revolution. Just as the Industrial Revolution eventually brought about extraordinary benefits for society, artificial intelligence systems have the potential to do the same. But Frey argues that this depends on how the short term is managed. In the nineteenth century, workers violently expressed their concerns over machines taking their jobs. The Luddite uprisings joined a long wave of machinery riots that swept across Europe and China. Today’s despairing middle class has not resorted to physical force, but their frustration has led to rising populism and the increasing fragmentation of society. As middle-class jobs continue to come under pressure, there’s no assurance that positive attitudes to technology will persist. The Industrial Revolution was a defining moment in history, but few grasped its enormous consequences at the time. The Technology Trap demonstrates that in the midst of another technological revolution, the lessons of the past can help us to more effectively face the present. Carl Benedikt Frey is Oxford Martin Citi Fellow at the University of Oxford where he directs the programme on the Future of Work at the Oxford Martin School. After studying economics, history and management at Lund University, Frey completed his PhD at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition in 2011. He subsequently joined the Oxford Martin School where he founded the programme on the Future of Work with support from Citigroup. Between 2012 and 2014, he taught at the Department of Economic History at Lund University. In 2012, Frey became an Economics Associate of Nuffield College and Senior Fellow at the Institute for New Economic Thinking, both at the University of Oxford. He remains a Senior Fellow of the Department of Economic History at Lund University, and a Fellow of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA). In 2019, he joined the World Economic Forum's Global Future Council on the New Economic Agenda, as well as the Bretton Woods Committee. In 2013, Frey co-authored “The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerization?”, estimating that 47% of jobs are at risk of automation. With over 5000 academic citations, the study’s methodology has been used by President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors, the Bank of England, the World Bank, as well as a popular risk-prediction tool by the BBC. In 2019, the paper was debated on the Last Week Tonight Show with John Oliver. Frey has served as an advisor and consultant to international organisations, think tanks, government and business, including the G20, the OECD, the European Commission, the United Nations, and several Fortune 500 companies. He is also an op-ed contributor to the Financial Times, Scientific American, and the Wall Street Journal, where he has written on the economics of artificial intelligence, the history of technology, and the future of work. His academic work has featured in over 100 media outlets,

In this episode, Dr. Carl Benedikt Frey discusses the relationship between technological breakthroughs and the varying responses from Labour over the long run. We discuss whether we are currently entering another 'Engel's Pause', contrasting labour replacing versus labour augmenting technologies and consider the political challenges they leave in their wake.

Dr. Carl Benedikt Frey, Oxford Martin Citi Fellow at Oxford University, tells Tonya Hall about different ways we can look back on history to predict what the future of AI looks like. FOLLOW US  - Subscribe to ZDNet on YouTube: http://bit.ly/2HzQmyf - Watch more ZDNet videos: http://zd.net/2Hzw9Zy - Follow ZDNet on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ZDNet - Follow ZDNet on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ZDNet - Follow ZDNet on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ZDNet_CBSi - Follow ZDNet on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/zdnet-com/ - Follow ZDNet on Snapchat: https://www.snapchat.com/add/zdnet_cbsi Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

“47% der Arbeitsplätze werden wegfallen”, so fassten einige Medien eine Studie von Carl Benedikt Frey zusammen. Das war aber nicht der wirkliche Inhalt dieser Studie. Um diese falschen Erkenntnisse in der richtige Licht zu rücken, hat dieser dann gleich ein ganzes Buch dazu verfasst.Was drin steht und was wir aus unser Geschichte für die Digitalisierung lernen können, hat Yannick für euch herausgearbeitet und fasst das wichtigste einmal zusammen.Dies ist der erste Teil von der Entstehung der Menschheit bis vor der industriellen Revolution. Der zweite Teil folgt dann am nächsten Samstag! Viel Spaß beim Hören!Und natürlich: Hier der Link zum Buch https://www.amazon.de/Technology-Trap-Capital-Labor-Automation/dp/069117279X

Carl Benedikt Frey gives the second talk in the second Ethics in AI seminar, held on January 27th 2020 (postponed from December 2nd 2019).

Carl Benedikt Frey gives the second talk in the second Ethics in AI seminar, held on January 27th 2020 (postponed from December 2nd 2019).

Carl Frey discusses his book 'The Technology Trap' In this book talk the Author, Carl Benedikt Frey, will discuss how the Industrial Revolution was a defining moment in history, but how few grasped its enormous consequences at the time. Now that we are in the midst of another technological revolution, how can the lessons of the past can help us to more effectively face the present?

Carl Frey discusses his book 'The Technology Trap' In this book talk the Author, Carl Benedikt Frey, will discuss how the Industrial Revolution was a defining moment in history, but how few grasped its enormous consequences at the time. Now that we are in the midst of another technological revolution, how can the lessons of the past can help us to more effectively face the present?

Carl Frey discusses his book 'The Technology Trap' In this book talk the Author, Carl Benedikt Frey, will discuss how the Industrial Revolution was a defining moment in history, but how few grasped its enormous consequences at the time. Now that we are in the midst of another technological revolution, how can the lessons of the past can help us to more effectively face the present?

On this episode, Carl Benedikt Frey assesses the possible effects of automation on employment and economic growth in both the short and long term. The post https://www.aei.org/multimedia/carl-benedikt-frey-on-the-technology-trap/ (Carl Benedikt Frey on the technology trap) appeared first on https://www.aei.org (American Enterprise Institute - AEI).

An intriguing set of questions that is being explored by researchers across the globe and is being discussed and brainstormed in various organisations and think tanks is: “what is the future of work”; “how forthcoming AI and Automation revolution will impact on the nature and structure of work”; and “what would be the impact of these changes on the fabric of society from social, economic and political perspectives”. In a 2013 study “The Future of Employment: How Susceptible are Jobs to Computerisation?” researchers Dr Carl Benedikt Frey and Dr Michael Osborne made an important observation: about 47% jobs in the US will be lost to automation. Dr Carl Frey is the co-director of programme on technology and employment at Oxford Martin School at Oxford University. His research focuses on “how advances in digital technology are reshaping the nature of work and jobs and what that might mean for the future”. In 2016, he was named the 2nd most influential young opinion leader by the Swedish business magazine Veckans Affärer. A recent book by Dr Carl Frey presents a thorough review of the history of technological progress and how it has radically shifted the distribution of economic and political power among society’s members. The title of the book is “The Technology Trap: Capital, Labour and Power in the Age of Automation”. The Industrial Revolution was a defining moment in history, but few grasped its enormous consequences at the time. This books demonstrates that the lessons of the past can help us to more effectively face the present and the forthcoming AI and automation revolution. Dr Carl Frey shows the Industrial Revolution created unprecedented wealth and prosperity over the long run, but the immediate consequences of mechanization were devastating for large swaths of the population. Middle-income jobs withered, wages stagnated, the labour share of income fell, profits surged, and economic inequality skyrocketed. These trends, Frey documents, broadly mirror those in our current age of automation, which began with the Computer Revolution. Just as the Industrial Revolution eventually brought about extraordinary benefits for society, artificial intelligence systems have the potential to do the same. But Frey argues that this depends on how the short term is managed. The decisions that we make now and the policies that we develop and adopt now will have profound impact on the future of work and job market. In the nineteenth century, workers violently expressed their concerns over machines taking their jobs. The Luddite uprisings joined a long wave of machinery riots that swept across Europe and China. Today’s despairing middle class has not resorted to physical force, but their frustration has led to rising populism and the increasing fragmentation of society. As middle-class jobs continue to come under pressure, there’s no assurance that positive attitudes to technology will persist. Dr Carl Frey joins me for this episode of Bridging the Gaps. In this podcast we discuss the ideas that Dr Frey presents in this book. Before discussing the future of work, we look at the history of work and how the nature of work evolved through various ages and how did it impact the equality in the society. Dr Frey notes in his book that the age of inequality began with the Neolithic revolution; we discuss this in detail. We then discussed first and second industrial revolutions and the age of digital transformation. We also discuss the rise of politics of polarisation and finally we discuss the future of work. This has been a fascinating conversation with a thought leader, on a hugely important subject.

In this episode of Sounds Robotic, host Charles Kenny talks with Carl Benedikt Frey, co-director of the Program on Technology and Employment at the Oxford Martin School, about his fears that the wage stagnation and rocketing inequality that resulted from the first industrial revolution could be repeated thanks to the spread of automation and artificial intelligence today. 

In this episode of Keen On, Andrew talks to Carl Benedikt Frey, the co-director of the Oxford Martin Programme on Technology and Employment at the University of Oxford and author of The Technology Trap, about the similarities between the 19th century and today, what the future holds for high-skilled jobs in the age of automation, and how governments can embrace the future of technology. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What happens when technological innovation, instead of helping people, displaces them? That’s been a vexing question throughout history and it remains so today. In this podcast, we address the issue with Dr. Carl Benedikt Frey, author of The Technology Trap: Capital, Labor, and Power in the Age of Automation. Dr. Carl Benedikt Frey is a professor at Oxford University, where he directs the program on Technology & Employment at the Oxford Martin School. His academic work has been featured in more than 100 media outlets, including The Economist, Foreign Affairs and The New York Times. Your host Matt Miller is the policy and communications advisor for Capital Group. An author and former Washington Post columnist, Matt was co-host of the public radio program Left, Right & Center. Do you have any suggested topics for Capital Ideas? Please contact our editorial team at capitalideas@capgroup.com.

Is technology destroying or creating jobs? Is today's wave of new technology different from previous historic periods? If it is, what are the key characteristics that make our times unique? What should policy-makers do to shape how technology impacts our lives? Watch Social Europe Editor-in-Chief Henning Meyer discuss these and related questions with Carl Benedikt Frey. Carl Benedikt Frey is the Oxford Martin Citi Fellow at Oxford University where he directs the programme on Technology and Employment at the Oxford Martin School You might also find our regular articles, blogs and other written publications of interest. Just visit our website www.socialeurope.eu to read our latest output. If you want to stay up-to-date with all things Social Europe just sign up to our regular newsletter. You can do so on our website.

The measles resurgence around the world has been blamed on parents refusing to vaccinate their children but is vaccinating children enough? Also, how a new glove for humans is teaching robots how to feel. And Kenneth Cukier asks Carl Benedikt Frey, economic historian, what can be learnt from the industrial revolution in today’s world of automation and robots. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The measles resurgence around the world has been blamed on parents refusing to vaccinate their children but is vaccinating children enough? Also, how a new glove for humans is teaching robots how to feel. And Kenneth Cukier asks Carl Benedikt Frey, economic historian, what can be learnt from the industrial revolution in today’s world of automation and robots. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Today’s travelers are looking for more personalization and convenience during their hotel stays, and hoteliers are seeking out new solutions to help meet those needs. Akia is an artificial intelligence messaging platform that allows communication between a hotel and guests and learns to anticipate guests’ needs. In this episode, I had the pleasure of interviewing Joshua Galun, Hospitality & Travel Lead at Excella Consulting. We spoke on: How Hospitality Can Gain Competitive Advantages in Age of #AI? In the publication "The Future of Employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerization?", authors Michael Osborne and Carl Benedikt Frey estimate 47% of U.S. jobs are at "high risk" of potential automation. The fact is, any repetitive job is at risk of being replaced by machines. Even though this trend is unlikely to impact the hospitality industry in the same way, it is undeniable that replacing human interaction where it does not add any value, and increasing it where it does, is the optimum use of AI. Hoteliers should let computers analyze trends and patterns in guest behavior, so their staff can focus on the personal interactions, without the need to browse through tons of emails just to remember if Mr. Smith prefers a poolside or a streetside room. Humans should focus on what they do best and let computers do what they do best. What about having hotel staff help guests to their rooms and checking up on a personal level how the guest is doing and using that to optimize the stay, rather than entering addresses and checking credit cards and scanning passports.

Carl Benedikt Frey of Oxford University is one of the leading economists analyzing the effects of digitization on labor markets. Interviewed by Christoph Keese, Frey elaborates on one of the most controversial issues in the current political debate: Will robots and algorithms put us humans out of work? Or will digital transformation create more jobs than it destroys? Carl Benedikt walks us through empirical data and puts the heated political debate into perspective. He is optimistic about the net employment effects and expects human beings to continue working in the future. But he also predicts significant pain and problems in adaption. Many people will lose their jobs to machines without finding new jobs or equivalent pay. Carl Benedikt makes the argument for wage insurances protectting individuals against tech-driven losses of income.

Den digitala transformationen går fortare än tidigare teknikskiften. Men den sker inte över en natt. Vi har tid på oss att skaffa oss de färdigheter och kompetenser som krävs på framtidens arbetsmarknad. Det säger den ledande automatiserings- och arbetsmarknadsforskaren Carl Benedikt Frey när han gästar Futurions podcast.