Want to Enhance Your Skills in an AI-Driven Workplace? (Re)turn to the Humanities
- Nitin Deckha
- Jul 31
- 3 min read
Idea 23 for 2025
It’s a confusing time. In my last post, I discussed research about how computer programmers are at risk of job displacement by AI, and that those in the computer and software-related fields were most prevalent users of AI based on research by Anthropic. This week, Microsoft publishes a list of jobs threatened by AI, again based on who is using AI.
The correlation being made, in both, is that by using AI, users are finding ways to enhance productivity and effectiveness of their work, and thus, potentially, train AI to do their work or job for them.
In Microsoft’s July 30th list of 40 jobs at risk, the top 10 were a mix of “liberal arts” jobs such as interpreters and translators, historians, writers and authors and customer services, sales and administrative jobs, such as sales representatives, travel representatives, ticket agents and yes, computer programmers. So, there’s some overlap 😊.
Does Using AI mean you are training it to do your job or augment your ability to work?
I pose this question in trying to explore the contradictory quagmire of information about the transformation of work with AI.
I don’t know which list is “right”; rather, it reflects the fluctuating and changing evolution of how various humans are adapting and incorporating with AI tools in the flow and process of their work. They, in fact, could be deploying AI functionalities for specific aspects of their work; however, I don’t know if this necessarily means that all their skills are at risk of being meaningless and worthless in the future.
In a piece for Inc from mid-July, writer Jessica Stillman argues that, as routine tasks are being automized, it is these human skills, and the liberal arts degrees that nurture them, that are going through a re-evaluation and re-appreciation.
Stillman quotes a banking CEO, Bill Withers, who is precisely re-evaluating the skills he learning as International Relations undergraduate who argues that:
“The technical skills are being provided by the machine, or by very competent people in other parts of the world who have really nailed the technical skills at a relatively low cost. I’m going to back to curiosity and empathy. Really, really understand the audience that you’re dealing with and anticipate those needs beforehand.”
Interestingly, Withers suggests both a purposive empathy and curiosity, tied to his work. In an important way, the technical skills are taken for granted (due to lower-cost international labour and machine automation), but connecting with humans to address needs and problems; for that, Withers is leaning in on his liberal arts education.
Stillman also cites a technologist and futurist who majored in English, Lindsey McInerney in a 2024 TedTalk entitled, “The Return to the Humanities in the Age of Artificial Intelligence.” In it, McInerney argues that AI is very impressive in data analytics, synthesizing information, pattern recognition, math, logic, and yes, computer programming. However, McInerney points out, AI does not have a cultural context, nor values or ethics, is not good with semantics and tone, something which, one could argue, interpreters and translators on the Microsoft’s list of threatened jobs, would likely be good at. AI, McInerney points out, "doesn’t care."
For all of these elements and nuances, we need to (re)turn to the humanities.
Comments