Leadership by Algorithm. David De Cremer

together makes it clear that the basic cognitive skills and physical abilities that humans have always brought to the table are about to become a thing of the past. These abilities are vulnerable to becoming automated and optimized further by fast-processing, learning machines. It is this vision – widely advocated in the popular press – that makes many of us wonder where the limits of automation lie; if there are any. After all, if even the skills and abilities that are essential to what makes us human seem ready to be replaced by AI, and this new technology is able to engage in deep learning and thus continuously improve, what will be left for humans in the future?

      This reflection is not a new one. In fact, it has been around for quite some time. Indeed, in 1965 British mathematician I.J. Good wrote, “An ultra-intelligent machine could design even better machines; there would then unquestionably be an ‘intelligence explosion,’ and the intelligence of man would be left far behind.” In all fairness, such speculation introduces several existential questions. And, it is those kinds of questions that make people very nervous today about the future of humanity in an ecosystem where technology that may overtake us has arrived. In fact, it introduces us to a potential conflict of interest that will make it hard for us to choose.

      On one hand, we are clearly obsessed with the power of AI to bring many benefits to our organizations and society. On the other hand, however, this obsession also creates a moment of reflection that worries us. A reflection that confronts us with the realization that human limits can be solved by technology; ultimately, this means that applying technology may render humans obsolete. In our pursuit for more profit and growth, and a desire to increase efficiency, we may be confronted with a sense of disappointment about what it actually means to be human.

      This kind of reflective and critical thinking about humanity makes clear that although we fear being replaced, we do look at humans and machines as two different entities. We make a big distinction between humans as us and machines as them. Because of this sentiment, it is clear that the idea of we (humans and machines together) may be difficult to accept. So, if this is the case, how on earth can we talk about a partnership between humans and machines? If we think we are so different that becoming one is impossible, coexistence will be the best situation possible. But even coexistence is feared by many, because this may still lead to humans being replaced by the superior machine.

      All these concerns point out that we consider humans as actors that are limited in their abilities, whereas we regard machines as entities that can develop and reach heights that ultimately humans will be unable to reach. But, is this a valid assumption? What does science say? Much of the research out there seems to provide evidence that this view may indeed be valid. Studies do suggest that if we look at how people judge the potential of new technology, approach its functionality and predict how to use it in the future, the conclusion seems to be that humans fear being outperformed. Why does science suggest such a conclusion?

Since the 1970s, scholars have been providing evidence that human experts do not perform as well as simple linear models in things like clinical diagnosis, forecasting graduate students’ success, and other prediction tasks.21,22 Findings like this have led to the idea that algorithmic judgment is superior to expert human judgment.23 For example, research has shown that algorithms deliver more accurate medical diagnoses when detecting heart-rate diseases.24,25,26

Furthermore, in the world of business, algorithms prove better at predicting employee performance, the products customers want to buy, and identifying fake news and information.27,28 An overall analysis of all these effects (what is called a meta-analysis) even reveals that algorithms outperform human forecasters by 10% on average.29 Overall, the evidence suggests that it is (and will increasingly be) the case that algorithms outperform humans.

This scientific evidence, combined with our tendency to think of humans and machines as us versus them, poses the question of whether AI will replace people’s jobs at center-stage.30 This question is no longer a peripheral one. It dominates many discussions in business and society, to the extent that websites now exist where one can discover the likelihood of your job being automated in the next 20 years.

      In fact, we do not even have to wait for this scenario to happen. For example, in 2018 online retailer Shop Direct announced the closure of warehouses because nearly 2,000 jobs had become automated. The largest software company in Europe, SAP, has also eliminated several thousands of jobs by introducing AI into their management structure.

The framework for today’s society is clearly dominated by the assumption that humans will be replaced by technology whenever possible (human-out-of-the-loop) and that it only makes sense for humans to be part of the business process when automation is not yet possible (contingent participation). Several surveys indicate that it is only a matter of time. For example, an Accenture study revealed that 85% of surveyed executives want to invest more extensively in AI-related technologies by 2020.31 Likewise, a PwC survey revealed that 62% of executives are planning to deploy AI in several management areas.32 Furthermore, a survey by Salesforce Research revealed that, in the service industry, 69% of organizations are actively preparing for AI-based service solutions to be applied. Finally, Yahoo Finance predicts that in 2040 our workforce “may be totally unrecognizable.”33

      Why we think about replacing humans

      Where does this obsession with replacing humans come from? Is it the human default that once we find a limitation – in this case, our own – we believe it must be eliminated and replaced? Is there simply no room for the weak? A matter of accepting that once a stronger villain arrives in town, the old (and weaker) one is replaced? If this is the case, then this kind of thinking will transform the discussion about the human-AI relationship into a zero-sum game. If one is better (and thus wins), then the other loses (and is eliminated). Where does the belief in this logic come from?

To answer this question, it is worthwhile to look at the distinction that the famous French philosopher René Descartes made between mind and body.34 The body allowed us to do physical work, but, with the industrial revolution taking place, we were able to replicate our physical strength by utilizing machines. The enormous advantage was that we could now work faster and create more growth and profit. Importantly, however, it also allowed us to free ourselves from physical labor and move our attention towards the power of our brain. This led to humans becoming more sophisticated and creative, and able to come up with new ways of dealing with reality. Our move towards the mind, and away from the body, meant that we submitted for the first time to the machine. With machines doing the mindless physical work, rendering the human body obsolete, we were then able to devote most of our time to work that requires the application of the mind.

      In the 21st century, it is our mind that is now being challenged by the technology revolution. Our mental capacity simply cannot compete with the speed of algorithms to process data, as well as their ability to learn and optimize any outcome in almost unlimited ways. These developments mean that, as a society, we have entered yet another phase of great opportunities which can benefit and further our interests. However, the opportunity available is not the augmentation of our physical strength to bring material success, but the augmentation of our cognitive strength. When using the idea of the body and mind to look at these developments, we may well have reason to be afraid.

      In the past, we became dependent on the machine to do our physical work. If the present and future follows the path of the past, does this mean that we will now also become dependent on technology to do the work of the mind? If we adopt a rational point of view, where we consider ourselves as primarily striving for optimization, this kind of dependence will definitely happen. We know that we live in a time where a new type of super mind – AI that goes well beyond the cognitive abilities of humans – has arrived. At the same time, we are being bombarded with news that the authentic human sense of intelligence is failing when we compare it to the efficiencies of artificial intelligence.

      Obviously, it is somewhat of an irony that we have created this challenge ourselves. Beyond that, it is a cynical sentiment that reminds us the end may be near. In fact, if algorithms now replace the human mind (after the machine replaced the body), we may have nowhere else to run. Wasn’t it the case that there is only body and mind? If both are replaced, in which direction do humans move? Do we need to now think about whether the human