It seems that newly minted college graduates are having trouble getting those entry level, low-paying jobs that used to be virtual guarantees in most avocations. Employers are discovering that AI can do many of those entry level jobs just fine, so they’re only interested in hiring folks with a few (say 5-ish) years of actual experience into those jobs that need that experience.

The question becomes what to do after those 5-ish years when those relatively experienced employees move on. Having hired few to no inexperienced folks fresh out of college, there now is no pool of somewhat experienced folks from which to hire.

My thought: use AI to train those who are inexperienced, both new graduates and by now 5-ish years post-college and still inexperienced, to do the entry-level and the somewhat experience-needing work. Continue that cycle as AI advances into the work heretothen requiring more experience, using AI to train employees into those yet more experience-needing positions.

Humans are always going to be better than robots at doing work that requires actual thinking, including jobs that don’t require much thinking directly but do require interaction with other humans in teamwork and/or collaboration (which are not the same thing), with supervisors, even with robots. It also takes humans to train that thinking, and robots can be useful tools in that training.

Carlyle, an investment firm, already is doing this sort of thing, but it needs to get more widespread.

The investment firm Carlyle now pitches to prospective hires that they won’t be doing grunt work. Junior hires go through AI training and a program called “AI University” in which employees share best practices and participate in pilot programs, said Lúcia Soares, the firm’s Chief Information Officer.
In the past, she said, junior hires evaluating a deal would find articles on Google, request documents from companies, review that information manually, highlight details, and copy and paste information from one document to another. Now, AI tools can do almost all of that.
“That analyst still has to go in and make sure the analysis is accurate, question it, challenge it,” she said. “The nature of the brain work that needs to go into it is very much the same. It’s just the speed at which these analysts can move.”

For whom do they work, come to that? “He” is Dr Marty Makary, the FDA Commissioner. “They” are the bureaucrats of the FDA.

[C]hanges are coming so swiftly, and often without input from career scientists, that Makary faces declining staff morale threatening to stymie his efforts. He must also contend with the administration’s staff cuts at the FDA….

Career scientists—that’s the press’ euphemism for entrenched bureaucrats who happen to have medical or science degrees.

Lowering employee morale, as opposed to bureaucrats’ morale, is an important problem. It is, however, most optimally solved by either or both of two items:

1. the bureaucrats figure out that they’re not the ones in charge, they must work within an operational hierarchy and either follow the instructions of those placed above them or resign their positions
2. the remaining bureaucrats and those newly hired, the latter whom lack the habits of entrenchment, get actually productive and do their jobs more efficiently, which can be facilitated by astute use of AI
3. That last, of course, requires that Makary implements AI as a tool and not as a decision maker itself

Regarding the opening question, “he,” Makary, works for the HHS Secretary, who in turn works for the President, who works for us American citizens. Makary, thus, works through his chain of command for us average Americans and for our benefit, not that of those bureaucrats. Neither the FDA nor government at large are jobs welfare programs; the incumbents are there for our weal, not their own benefit.

I’m not too worried about the morale of entrenched bureaucrats. I’m concerned about their actual performance of their duties.