What will be left for us to work on
Summary
An ICML invited talk argues that AI is an augmentation technology rather than pure automation, suggesting researchers and developers shift focus to evaluation, conceptual progress, and domain skills.
View Cached Full Text
Cached at: 08/26/26, 09:16 PM
Similar Articles
What will be left for us to work on?
Arvind Narayanan's ICML 2026 keynote argues that the 'AI as Normal Technology' framework is useful for understanding AI's impacts, rejects the notion of sudden job loss from AI, and envisions a future of human-AI co-superintelligence requiring significant adaptation.
If AI can do the work, what exactly are we being paid for?
The article explores how AI's advancing execution capabilities may shift human roles towards goal-setting and judgment, while highlighting concerns about skill development and expertise building in a changing work landscape.
Are AI tools making things easier or are they just changing the type of work that needs to be done
A reflective piece argues AI tools shift effort from ideation to evaluation, asking whether they truly save time or merely change the type of work.
I don't think learning more AI tools is enough anymore.
The article argues that learning to use AI tools is not enough; the real advantage comes from building systems, gaining attention, communicating ideas, and creating products people want. Execution and combination of skills will matter more than just AI proficiency.
The future of AI
The author reflects on AI dependency and argues that human verification of AI outputs may be the ultimate limit on progress. They suggest transhumanism and neural augmentation could keep humans meaningfully in the loop, making the future one of human augmentation rather than obsolescence.