The prospect of artificial intelligence (AI) changing our working lives deserves a serious response. For someone choosing a career, supporting a family, or learning a new skill, reassurance alone is not enough. But neither is a conversation that treats human contribution as something technology is steadily making irrelevant.
I believe we need a more practical starting point. We should learn to direct these tools while continuing to develop the judgment that gives our work purpose. That distinction matters as AI’s capabilities expand.
A 2025 International Labour Organization study estimated that one in four workers worldwide held an occupation with some exposure to generative AI. Yet it identified job transformation as the most likely overall effect, because most occupations still include tasks requiring human input. Exposure measures potential technological impact, rather than actual job losses.
This is not a guarantee that anyone’s livelihood is secure. Nor should workers be blamed when employers automate their responsibilities. Treating replacement as inevitable may discourage people from developing the very abilities they need to participate in decisions about how their work changes.
We should begin by broadening what we mean by creativity. It belongs in more places than a studio or a publishing house. A programmer finding a clearer solution, a teacher adapting an explanation, and an employee working through a customer’s unusual problem are all exercising it.
In each case, creativity involves understanding a situation and deciding what might work better. That is the contribution I believe deserves greater attention in discussions about AI. Asking a system for a finished answer is different from knowing what a useful answer should accomplish.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
