Filippos is Manual's head of product design and the author of a popular product design blog and course, Designary. He shares his thoughts on the future of work for product designers.
Honestly, I think we need to move beyond the debate about where jobs will or won’t be (which is largely speculative) and start focusing on how we can use these systems to enable better talent distribution. It’s something I’ve been deeply obsessed with lately and wondering what you think.
I tend to agree. The most likely outcomes I see are: 1) These tools make us hugely more productive, or 2) AGI is coming (and soon), and we need to rethink how humans contribute to a functioning society.
My current bet (speculative, for sure) is on #2.
We should all examine our work and consider how we can scale ourselves. If you break down what our jobs require, there's a subset that requires creativity and experimentation and another subset that requires grunt work.
Grunt work can be delegated. Creativity and experimentation, not so much. The question is whether we need that many people for those roles.
To say the next years will be fascinating is an understatement!
Exactly. I might add a layer: I’m not sure we were fulfilled before, either. We already had millions of people stuck in performative roles, trapped in systems that optimized for output over meaning. AI isn’t breaking something sacred ... it’s exposing an already broken foundation. That’s why I think the talent distribution question matters so much. The system was already bad at seeing people for what they’re capable of. Now it risks flattening them entirely ..
TBH, AI is breaking a *lot* of things that were already pretty broken.
Education systems benefit those who can regurgitate information, not necessarily those who learn. AI has broken that model.
Hiring processes benefit those who can sell themselves well (performative interview processes), not necessarily those who can perform on the job. AI has broken that model, too.
I'm glad these things will require a rethink; they've been the same for far too long.
Honestly, I think we need to move beyond the debate about where jobs will or won’t be (which is largely speculative) and start focusing on how we can use these systems to enable better talent distribution. It’s something I’ve been deeply obsessed with lately and wondering what you think.
I tend to agree. The most likely outcomes I see are: 1) These tools make us hugely more productive, or 2) AGI is coming (and soon), and we need to rethink how humans contribute to a functioning society.
My current bet (speculative, for sure) is on #2.
We should all examine our work and consider how we can scale ourselves. If you break down what our jobs require, there's a subset that requires creativity and experimentation and another subset that requires grunt work.
Grunt work can be delegated. Creativity and experimentation, not so much. The question is whether we need that many people for those roles.
To say the next years will be fascinating is an understatement!
Exactly. I might add a layer: I’m not sure we were fulfilled before, either. We already had millions of people stuck in performative roles, trapped in systems that optimized for output over meaning. AI isn’t breaking something sacred ... it’s exposing an already broken foundation. That’s why I think the talent distribution question matters so much. The system was already bad at seeing people for what they’re capable of. Now it risks flattening them entirely ..
I like that framing.
TBH, AI is breaking a *lot* of things that were already pretty broken.
Education systems benefit those who can regurgitate information, not necessarily those who learn. AI has broken that model.
Hiring processes benefit those who can sell themselves well (performative interview processes), not necessarily those who can perform on the job. AI has broken that model, too.
I'm glad these things will require a rethink; they've been the same for far too long.