Will robots soon leave us without work?

In the news, we hear more and more reports about robotisation, and in particular about humanoid robots—robots that have characteristics resembling the appearance of a human being.

Robots are no longer limited to science fiction movies. Did you see the dancing robots at the World Economic Forum in Davos earlier this year? Shortly afterwards, humanoid robots appeared in the Chinese New Year parade in Paris. These robots walk and dance while waving to spectators. At the same time, Elon Musk announced that he would give less priority to Tesla in favour of his Optimus robot. He even claims that the Optimus robot will become better surgeons and will replace them, raising questions about whether medical training will still be necessary. It is therefore interesting to pause and reflect on what robots can really mean for the workplace and whether employees should fear for their jobs.

I will first give some reasons in favour of robots in the workplace, because we should not lose sight of their many advantages.

• First of all, it is important to realise that there are many different types of robots. Robots can be purely software-based, such as Siri or chatbots, or they can resemble hardware machines that automate factory work. There are also service robots, such as the well-known Pepper. In other words, not all robots are the same. Robots can already do a lot, but not everything. Moreover, robots can have different levels of intelligence. Some mainly possess analytical computing power, while others also have cognitive and social abilities. There are even robots that adopt a human-like face, such as the well-known Sophia. However, these are still largely experimental or used mainly for media promotion and are therefore not actively replacing employees in the workplace.
• Second, employees will remain necessary for their human qualities, tasks at which robots are less effective. Examples where humans excel include setting strategy, qualitatively assessing situations, problem-solving by taking context into account, dealing with variation, coaching others, and thinking empathetically. By recognising that human qualities differ from robot capabilities, companies can aim for a more complementary form of human-robot collaboration. For example, robot dogs can easily patrol and collect environmental data in difficult-to-reach or dangerous places, after which security or maintenance staff can process the collected data.
• Third, robot replacement often occurs at the task level rather than replacing entire jobs. Robotisation therefore tends to have only a limited impact on overall employment levels. However, it is correct that robots can take over tasks performed by workers, employees, and even managers. Student jobs or entry-level positions may be the most susceptible to automation because they often consist of more routine work, which highlights the importance of expertise.
• Furthermore, robotisation can allow employees to focus more on their core tasks and relieve excessive workloads. This can lead to greater job satisfaction, for example, by reducing tasks that are physically demanding, highly repetitive, or involve collecting data according to fixed and unambiguous rules. Employees may be freed up and have more time for complex cases or decision-making.
• Finally, robotisation fits within a natural evolution in which companies continuously strive for greater efficiency and effectiveness. Robots make it possible to rethink work processes. Like in previous industrial revolutions, they will change job content, but people will remain necessary. Automation is not new and has historically created greater prosperity and saved time for people, often resulting in cheaper products. All of this can also benefit employees and society as a whole.

Next to these positive aspects, however, there are also several critical considerations linked to robotisation. These issues call for action.

• First, there is the risk of a digital divide between those who can collaborate with robots and AI and those who struggle to do so. Therefore, we must continue to focus on inclusion and digital literacy. In general, Belgium scores around average in Europe when it comes to digital skills, so additional awareness and training regarding robots and AI remain necessary. Digital inclusion is a major societal challenge and requires a shared effort from individuals, governments, educational institutions, and companies. Accessible initiatives, for example free information sessions and workshops in local libraries, are needed.
• Second, there is a risk linked to the shortage of IT specialists. In general, IT jobs remain shortage occupations, and many companies struggle to fill their IT vacancies. It is therefore important to continue investing in STEM-oriented education, starting from kindergarten through to higher education. This can both encourage students to specialise in IT and reach a broader group of young people to strengthen their digital skills. I recommend that schools teach about the use of prompts and algorithms, as well as about working with robots, or simply remain open to innovation and change through lifelong learning. Lifelong learning and the willingness to retrain therefore remain crucial priorities.
• In addition, robots may also lead to frustration and uncertainty—for example, when complementary collaboration does not run smoothly at first or when employees realise that robots are not perfect or infallible. Fortunately, the adoption of robots depends not only on technological possibilities but also on other factors such as cost, company strategy, and social preferences. On the one hand, robots offer an opportunity to rethink work processes, but on the other hand ethical safeguards are necessary. I recommend that companies guarantee job security and provide the necessary training, or at least ensure sufficient human interaction and specialisation. Companies should also guarantee that humans retain final responsibility rather than robots. For example, humans should remain able to overrule robots if necessary.
• Finally, many practical questions and concerns remain regarding the development of human skills and the rights of robots. An ethical debate is therefore desirable. For example, to what extent should young people still learn to write texts and summaries themselves? And what happens if robots make mistakes, for instance during surgery? Who can be held liable in such cases—the surgeon, the robot’s programmer, or the employer? The answer to these questions remains unclear and will likely provoke much discussion.

To recap, the fear of being completely replaced by robots is largely exaggerated. As an employee, you are more likely to be replaced by a human colleague who is better at working with robots and AI than being replaced by the technology itself.

And to respond to Elon Musk’s prediction: it still makes sense to train surgeons at universities. Robots can already help surgeons perform minimally invasive operations with greater precision and thus offer faster recovery for patients. But contact with patients should remain in the hands of human specialists. At least for me. What about you?

Amy Van Looy is an associate professor at the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration. Her research interests include business process management and digital innovation. Before obtaining her PhD, she worked as an IT consultant on e-government projects. Amy Van Looy has received several academic and non-academic awards, as well as a top-10 nomination for “Young ICT Lady of the Year 2014” by the magazine DataNews, and recognition as a *Belgian IT role model by “InspiringFifty Belgium” in 2020.