 For the last two, three centuries, there is always this fear the machines are taking over. I don't think anyone can irresponsibly say, oh, don't worry, nothing will happen to jobs. This time it might be true. The world's people say they're not overly anxious about technology. They are deeply, deeply anxious about their jobs. AI will impact jobs. But we don't know what's going to come. We don't even know what new inventions they're going to be. To reinvent yourself when you're 20, it's difficult but you do it. To do it again at 30, at 40, at 50, that's very high levels of anxiety. But so what are we left to do then? What are we left to do then? It's easy to imagine the predicted 66 million people poised to lose their jobs to machines, muttering the same refrain. The OECD, the intergovernmental organization that came up with that figure, estimates that 14% of jobs could be automated in industrialized countries. And though machines are most immediately coming after manufacturing and agricultural drops, even work requiring more specialized skills could increasingly fall to automation. Goldman Sachs's chief financial officer reported that their US cash equities trading desk employed some 600 traders back in 2000. All but two of those positions had become automated by 2017. In these increasingly uncertain times, we ask the experts what jobs will be created and what jobs will disappear. There'll be some disintegration and some creation of jobs. 15 years ago, we could not have thought of software engineering as a job. Today, the whole Silicon Valley is full of that labor force. First, obviously, it will create AI jobs, right? People who program AI, people who fix robots. But in terms of quantity is a very, very small quantity. We will see jobs more related to interaction with intelligent machines. Where it's symbiotic between the man and machine. The human can do things that the machine cannot do, and the together they do better. Freeing labor from dangerous, repetitive work. I suggest every professional, whether you're a lawyer or accountant, think about tools that emerge and how that makes you two, three, four times stronger, better, and richer for that matter. People talk so much about replacing humans, but I think the goals of AI machines should be actually more assistive. But to be really honest, professional jobs are still a small proportion of the total jobs. To a large extent, blue collar jobs will be replaced by machinery. Bank teller, receptionist, customer service, drivers, and even radiologists, relatively high-end, more complex jobs are going to eventually get replaced over the next 15 to 20 years. The routine job replacement is huge. A humanity has seen this over and over again. Every industrial revolution is a huge disruption of jobs. I think it easily accounts for half of our jobs. Different people have different views about whether these half of the jobs will take 10 years or maybe 30 years or 40 years to be replaced. But even 40 years is faster than industrial revolution. The experts agree that though technology has disrupted the nature of work in the past, at no point in history has the transformation been so rapid and extensive. And that speed means workers must stay nimble and continue learning new skills throughout their working lives. I think that there will be new jobs. The big question is whether people will be able to reinvent themselves to fill these jobs. But what if they can't? Stay nimble and keep learning. The difficulty would be if you're in the same routine type of environment for 20, 25 years and suddenly you're told it's not available anymore, go and learn something entirely new. Well, that's the case. It's the most difficult case. That's where governments have an important role to play. If a job is going to be lost, what's the support for the worker to make sure they have skills and redeployment support? You need to provide a kind of training program. And the big question there is who pays for this training program and who provides it? Provision at the company level, funding shared by the company and the state. Full employment is still at the heart of our communities, the dignity of work, the cohesion that brings social stability, and we need to plan for that. Because if we don't do that, half the people losing their jobs, whether it's over 10 or 30 years, is going to create a large number of unhappy people who face not only a loss of income, but also loss of meaning. I think we need to create more human compassion jobs, human touch jobs, caretaking jobs of keeping company of the older people, orphanages, concierge, masseuse, bartender. There will be many more flexible forms of employment, but the averages and also for full-time workers will be less. There will be more time for leisure activities, travel. We need to, in our education, have the future children know that it is okay these are good jobs to have. That whole shift of retraining education and, in fact, a shift from the Industrial Revolution work ethic to a new work ethic where we can have lives that we much more enjoy, that whole shift, I think, is a huge process. What about college students trying to decide which degrees are worth potentially tens of thousands of their tuition dollars? Which ones will actually land them jobs? Perhaps a bachelor's in art history doesn't attract the same job prospects as, say, one in computer science. Finding purposeful work. To the 18, 19, 20-year-old. In terms of choosing degrees at college. You know, you hear people talking about problem-solving being at the essence. I've heard this for 25 years. I think the main consideration that you have to do is whether you're interested in that degree. Humanities are at the base of our knowledge. They're at the base of our own understanding of human relationships and history and development. The world needs that diversity of thinkers and doers. It gives you a core of a knowledge base that then you can build on with specialist skills. Do what you're interested in, because if you do what you're interested in, then you'll be good at it. Now, labour markets change. You have to keep learning all the time. You have to keep adapting. Therefore, you need to have the basic skills. Computer skills, scientific knowledge, the capacity to understand geology, these are specific skills that you can build on. I think we've made false choices by separating so far out of the equation on technical degrees. If we really want people who can think about things, solve problems, then you need a mix of both. Though many universities are diverting more and more funding to their maths and science departments, we discount the humanities at our own peril. Equally, say our experts, if we don't build a framework for an automated future, we could face significant social, economic and political upheaval. So, are we prepared for automation? Humanity at the beginning was working all day or weekends on the land, right? Industrialisation has shifted that now most of us in the world, at least in the developed world, live in a nine-five kind of job scenario in five days a week. The human purpose in life is not about working very hard, even if it's a routine job, and attain wealth and respect. It is more about expressing love and compassion, about making a difference to other human beings. I think we understand enough about automation to know what structures to have in place, to ease the transition. If we don't learn from the lessons of the past, if we aren't prepared to actually heal the fractures of the current working environment and then build on those partnerships to plan for a secure future, then it does look bleak. We don't have to protect jobs, we have to protect people.