I recently had an informative and valuable conversation with someone who works in career services. The conversation was wide-ranging but among the more mutually illuminating parts of our conversation involved the differences between what we’re being told and what we see.
My interlocutor conveyed how relentless is the message coming from seemingly innumerable channels that “employers want applicants with AI skills!” But as we got further into our conversation it emerged that—at least in the fields for which this person is responsible—job ads aren’t actually requesting “AI skills.” Nevertheless, a general sense of urgency is impressed upon folks like them, and educators like me, to create AI-ready students, whatever that means.
I got curious and went on to the websites for a museum and an auction house—two places where my own students in the History of Art & Architecture go to look for jobs. Of all the ads for positions I clicked, none said a single thing about “AI.” This is a minuscule sample. Of course. But it’s an experiment I’d like to throw out to anyone reading this. Go to the website for an institution or company in your field or industry, so long as that industry is not itself related to software development, computer engineering, and cognate fields. See how many positions are requiring applicants have “AI skills” or something similar. Some do, for sure. And some probably ask about it in the interview.
My guess is it is not as ubiquitous as the nightly news, legislators, and the frantic calls from university administrators make it seem. And as the shine is coming off, at least as employers realize that AI slop is inundating their applicant pool, it seems doubly important to get out in front of a narrative that is provoking a kind of panic.
As I was quoted saying in this article, here,
Urgency is meant to flood the mind of the customer so they can’t take a pause to consider whether the thing that’s being sold really needs to be bought,” she said. “I see no need for urgency. I understand that the phrase ‘But we’re going to fall behind’ can be very convincing. But no one is really asking, ‘Fall behind what?’
The more we succumb to frenzied demands, the less capacity we have to shape the future in a way that is hospitable to life. Better we should add the friction that comes with asking questions, demanding to see the proof that justifies rebuilding our world in someone else’s image.
In short, we need to get better at seeing discrepancies between rhetoric and reality and understand how the former can end up manufacturing the latter.