Will AI Replace “Bullshit Jobs” First? Rethinking the Future of Work
As Artificial Intelligence continues to advance, a common question arises: if AI is poised to automate many tasks, which jobs are most likely to vanish first? Many skeptics point to what are often labeled as “bullshit jobs”—roles that, on the surface, seem to involve little tangible productivity. These include corporate positions such as project managers, consultants, or those who spend their days creating PowerPoint presentations, responding to endless emails, and attending unnecessary meetings.
It raises an intriguing paradox: if these administrative or managerial roles are considered non-essential or “meaningless,” should they be the first to go in an AI-driven economy? Conversely, why do essential roles like housekeepers or factory workers—whose jobs are directly involved in production and essential service provision—seem less vulnerable to automation?
Another layer to this discussion concerns educational backgrounds. Why do certain degrees, including humanities, languages, design, and computer science, appear more susceptible to automation or obsolescence than fields such as economics, finance, or administrative management? Is it because technical and quantitative roles are inherently more automatable, or does it reflect broader societal perceptions of value and utility?
The ongoing AI revolution prompts us to rethink the nature of work, the legitimacy of certain roles, and the skills that will remain vital in the future. As automation integrates into various sectors, understanding which jobs are truly at risk—and why—becomes essential for planning careers and shaping policy. The conversation about “bullshit jobs” is more relevant than ever, urging us to question what work is truly meaningful and necessary in our rapidly changing world.
Leave a Reply