The Future of Work in the Age of Automation: Proceedings of a Workshop on Norbert Wiener’s 21st Century Legacy

"If you're not thinking about AI, you're not thinking." ~ Chris Meyer

Norbert Wiener (1894–1964), has been famously cited as the mathematician who founded the field of cybernetics with the publication in 1948 of his seminal book Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. His work was the direct intellectual precursor to modern AI and automation. 

Wiener was hardly optimistic about the effects of AI on the future of work. He repeatedly warned that unchecked automation would cause massive unemployment, treat machines as the “precise economic equivalent of slave labor,” and force human workers to accept slave-like economic conditions.

In 2023, an IEEE Workshop on Norbert Wiener’s legacy examined how AI and automation are reshaping the future of work. Drawing on Wiener’s warnings about job displacement and the ethical duties of technologists, participants critiqued overly optimistic “technological determinism” narratives that ignore social costs. 

Discussions highlighted qualitative losses — reduced meaning, creativity, and human connection in work — alongside risks of growing inequality and environmental harm. The workshop called for interdisciplinary collaboration, stronger governance, and a shift toward human-centered values like dignity and flourishing, rather than pure efficiency or profit, to ensure technology serves society rather than disrupts it.

One of the paricipants of this workshop was Pedro H. Albuquerque (Senior Member, IEEE.)  Born in Brazil he obtained an Electrical Engineering degree from the University of Brasilia, and a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Our paths crossed while he was teaching economics at UMD here in Duluth approximately two decades ago and became part of the philosophy club we hosted in our home.

             

He is now a Research Fellow with the Aix-Marseille School of Economics in France and a Cofounder of ACCELERATION & ADAPTATION. He has published articles in a large number of scientific journals and has presented at leading international conferences, in fields as varied as occupational science, engineering, economics, finance, and social studies. His areas of interest are technology studies, economics, occupational science, sustainability, and finance. 

Over the years Albuquerque has been a gracious resource, and the increasing adoption of AI I've been leaning in to hear his cautionary thoughts on this topic. What follows are a batch of short answers to long questions pertaining to the workshop on Norbert Wiener of which he was a member/participant.

EN: Norbert Wiener emphasized the moral duty to anticipate risks and societal impacts. How do you balance that responsibility with the risk of overcorrecting—where caution itself might slow or block beneficial innovation?

Pedro Albuquerque: Generally the opposite risk doesn't exist, when it's mentioned it's normally a political narrative in favor of some status quo. The real challenge is not having enough restraint (example, development of nuclear weapons).

EN: Some argue that technology threatens “meaning” in work and life. But isn’t meaning ultimately an individual responsibility? To what extent should technology be held accountable for something so personal?

PA: The effects of technological innovations on our lives are hardly under our control (example: parents are unable to avoid the consequences of Internet misuse on their children, no matter how much they try hard).

EN: There’s concern about “loss of human engagement” in an AI-driven world. How much of that is driven by technology itself, and how much is the result of individual choice and personality differences?

PA: It arguably affects all, some more than others though.

EN: When we talk about “fairness” in the age of AI, what does that actually mean? If technological progress raises overall prosperity, is it inherently problematic if some benefit more than others?

PA: It doesn't necessarily raise overall prosperity, technology is neutral on that. Prosperity in its use is a political choice, not a technological matter.

EN: The discussion often emphasizes “justice” and “equity” in AI outcomes. How do you define those terms in practical ways, especially compared to clear historical injustices like redlining?

PA: Redlining is a good example, technology may be politically chosen to be the instrument of oppression.

EN: We currently see large numbers of unfilled jobs in certain sectors. Could AI and automation actually solve labor shortages rather than displace workers—and how should we think about that distinction?

PA: Again, the outcomes are not driven by technology, but by political choices.

EN: Many discussions focus on what could go wrong with AI. How do you weigh those risks against the possibility that the opposite—positive, transformative outcomes—may be just as likely?

PA: As humans are risk averse, normally risks and damages are the central concern.

EN: There’s a concern that efficiency may come at the expense of artistry or human connection. But in areas like housing or healthcare, speed and scale can meet urgent needs. How should we balance efficiency with human-centered values?

PA: Efficiency can be evaluated both as quality and quantity. Modern societies have been lobotomized by a "quantity over quality" productivist ideology, where what can't be measured or financially evaluated is thrown under the rug.

EN: AI’s energy use is often criticized. How should we evaluate that concern in the broader context of energy innovation—such as nuclear or other emerging solutions?

PA: It's a whole other Pandora box. Let's just say for now that this new technology will put increasing and extreme pressure on a system that's yet unsustainable and under great danger of collapse.

EN: When people talk about “ensuring worker wellbeing” in an AI-driven economy, what does that mean in concrete terms? What should actually be measured or protected?

PA: Another Pandora box, we'd need to ignore economics, which isn't very helpful for these matters, and let the public health and occupational scientists speak. But in the current political and economic systems their voices remain mostly unheard.

EN: AI outcomes are often described as unpredictable. But uncertainty has accompanied every major technological shift. At what point does uncertainty become a reason for caution versus a normal condition of progress?

PA: History tells us we've always done less than optimal in prevention.

EN: Efforts to design “ethical AI” often focus on minimizing inequality. How do you balance that goal with the reality that individuals make different choices and define success in different ways?

PA: Public policies are known to successfully address these matters.

* * * * *

Download The Future of Work in the Age of Automation: Proceedings of a Workshop on Norbert Wiener’s   https://drive.google.com/drive/search?q=Love%20et%20al 

What Are Your Thoughts on These Things?
Please leave a message in the comments.

Related Links
A Visit with Futurist Calum Chace on his new book The Economic Singularity
https://pioneerproductions.blogspot.com/2016/06/a-visit-with-futurist-calum-chace-on.html

Surviving AI by Calum Chace Is a Must Read for Those Who Plan to Be Here in the Future

https://pioneerproductions.blogspot.com/2016/06/surviving-ai-by-calum-chace-is-must.html

Will Computers Put Journalists Out Of Business? Check Out These 7 Stories

https://pioneerproductions.blogspot.com/2016/04/will-computers-put-journalists-out-of.html

Pedro Albuquerque Sheds Light on U.S. & E.U. Economics and Our Current Political Climate

I met economics professor Pedro Albuquerque in a somewhat freaky manner. My family was reading the book Freakonomics and a section of the book made me want to write about incentives as they relate to economics. I did a Google search and found an interesting blog titled Incentives Matter. As I read some of the articles I felt like I'd discovered a kindred spirit, which made me want to contact this blog writer to get to know him better. To my astonishment he was actually here in Duluth, teaching economics at UMD. We soon had lunch at Pizza Luce which led to inviting he and his wife Sophie to our Philosophy Club. Eventually they moved to the south of France, but we've stayed in touch. Occasionally events in the news lead me to reach out to gain his perspective on things from outside the country. Since reality is mediated to us through only partially reliable media it is useful to have a network of collaborating or alternative perspectives. I've found Pedro's perspectives fresh and insightful.

EN: Briefly summarize your career and what you do.

Pedro Albuquerque: I was born in Brazil and I have a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. I lived in Duluth while teaching at UMD's Labovitz School of Business and Economics and I'm now a professor at KEDGE Business School in the metropolitan region of Aix-Marseille in the south of France.

EN: You lived in the U.S. for a while and now live in France. Economically and politically, what is similar and what is different?

PA: I've lived in the U.S. from 1995 to 2010 and, retrospectively, I must say that those were great times, specially the years before 9/11. Our expectations about the future were much more optimistic then. Having lived for 15 years in the U.S. and for 8 years in France I can say that there are many similarities between these two societies, which have origins in their common revolutionary roots, after all the American Constitution and the French Declaration of the Rights of the Man and of the Citizen, having both benefited from the pen of Thomas Jefferson, are based on similar values, ideals and struggles. In this sense I don't think there are two other developed societies that have so much in common. But there are many differences naturally, most of them stemming from the contrasts between common law in the US and Roman civil law in Continental Europe, which lead to American corporate capitalism on one side and to European social market capitalism on the other side.

EN: What is the appeal of socialism for so many Americans? What is the track record of socialism in Europe?

PA: The US, despite its enormous historical achievements, has been until now unable to extend the benefits of its successes to the whole of its population. This is particularly true when compared to the more evident social successes of some Western European societies. One popular but disingenuous explanation is to attribute Western European relative successes to socialism, so the mentioned appeal. Reality is more complex however: socialist experiments in Europe have all failed badly, with the developmental disparities between Western and Eastern European societies being the best example of how negative was the impact of socialism in many of those. Some have argued, and I agree with them, that the success cases weren't due to socialism but to ordoliberalism, a modern version of social and economic liberalism that emphasizes institutional building, good governance, social protection and sensibly regulated market capitalism. Nordic societies would be examples of ordoliberal successes.

EN: What are the strengths and weaknesses of Capitalism?

PA: I believe that Joseph Schumpeter's work is still the most important in explaining the strengths of capitalism: it promotes creative destruction, a system of incentives where innovation is at the heart of entrepreneurship and its rewards. This has never existed before in history. The weaknesses come from the instability and conflicts that rise from this same creative destruction. Finding the right balance between innovative disruption and social peace is in my opinion the greatest challenge of modern societies, which becomes even more important as the pace of social, economic and technological transformation accelerates. I'd like to add that we should never forget that modern societies like the American or the French are still in the middle of the revolution of ideas that gave rise to the modern era.

EN: The divisions between right and left (conservatives and liberals) in the U.S. seem more extreme today.

PA: I like to think about what's happening today in the US as another backward step in the incomplete path of the American Revolution. This is not new in the relatively short American history, it has had enough of its Andrew Jackson versus Abraham Lincoln moments. Still, it's quite surprising to observe that the U.S., the clear hegemonic winner of the post-WWII period, is now at the front of the political destabilization process that has been taking over the world since 9/11. Very candidly, from a social scientist perspective, I wouldn't have ever predicted this historical outcome. I've always had enormous faith in the American humanistic and progressive fiber, and I'm still in awe at how badly it has been faltering recently.

EN: How is this playing out in Europe? Is the E.U. threatened? That is, will the E.U. unravel and what will be the end result?

PA: Europe has been very badly affected by those internal struggles in the U.S. given its prominent role in reconstruction and stabilization of the continent after WWII and the influence of American culture and business in the region. There are therefore only two possible outcomes for Europe, which has its own ghosts to deal with: it will bend back towards its most primitive political instincts and disintegrate into relatively irrelevant and isolated aging nations, see the recent example of Italy, or it will grow over the tutorship of the U.S. by finally taking responsibility for its own future as a still very influential federation of nations, accepting immigration as a social force instead of a social handicap. Despite some recent political accidents there are also some even more important positive surprises such as the election of Emmanuel Macron in France. It's very hard then to predict how this situation will unravel, we're clearly at a historical crossroad, but if the past serves as a guide I still remain mostly optimistic about the end result. Social change is the only historical constant and there is always sunshine after a storm.

* * * *
Related Link
http://pedrohalbuquerque.net