Few recent technological innovations were better poised to become a productivity slam dunk than the personal computer. Spreadsheets, word processors, databases, presentation software, email – the list of programs that could vastly simplify common tasks seemed endless.
As I reported in a 2021 op-ed for WIRED, however, reality proved more complicated. For example:
- A 1991 article in the New York Times quoted an economist who said that despite heavy spending on computers, “white-collar productivity has stagnated.” He concluded: “No longer are chief executives confident that throwing computers at their office staffs will result in greater efficiency.”
- A study covering the period from 1987 to 1993 calculated that computers added only 0.2 percentage points a year to business output growth, leading a contemporaneous summary to declare that the “impact of computers on recent productivity growth has been vastly overstated.”
- In his 1997 book, Why Things Bite Back, Edward Tenner argued that these findings underscored what he called a “productivity paradox.”
I thought about this article recently as I continue grappling with our current AI moment. It’s natural to assume that this technology, which clearly makes certain common professional activities easier, will make our working lives more productive overall.
But as the early years of desktop computing taught us: it’s not always so simple.
Most of us would not want to go back to a time before PCs; we’ve become accustomed to their conveniences. But it’s also true that their impact on our output was never as tremendous or as clear-cut as that of prior innovations, such as the steam engine or the power loom, and that integrating them effectively into the workforce took a long time.
Similarly, it seems unlikely that AI is a technological genie that will be fully returned to its bottle. Much like early PCs, there is too much untapped convenience to be ignored. But as we struggle to figure out how to think about the promise of these tools, it’s worth remembering that in the digital world, productivity doesn’t always match our expectations.
P.S., That 2021 Wired article was inspired by the release of my New York Times bestselling book, A World Without Email. If you want to learn more about the uneven impact of computing and network technology on knowledge work, I highly recommend checking out that book. It’s one of my most deeply researched and provocative titles…
Thanks Cal,
I recently read the book “Dealers of Lightning”, by Michael Hiltzik, and this newsletter reminded me of it. It documents the rise of the computing age – and it sure seems to have similarities with the current rise of AI.
A few items that I highlighted:
– “Prompt engineering” as an early niche in both fields.
– Very large time-share computers starting out, then moving into personal computers. Thought that fit nicely with the huge LLMs today, and your idea of smaller, focused models later.
– A lot of money being lost by companies as they pour into these fields!
Thanks as always for your great work,
I always appreciate your unavailing willingness to explore disparate sides to the same argument. You approach them with such richness and candor. This brings to mind that discussion surrounding Arnold Bennett in your 2016 bestseller “Deep Work,” and the concept of experiencing “a lifestyle [that] is blandly familiar in our current age, but…it was novel and in many ways distressing.” This led me to the idea that, perhaps, the folly of all generations is their persistent inclination to propagate the prior generation’s idealized version of what is “better.” In other words, one solution to “better” begets another unforeseen issue, that the next generation attempts to resolve. But in actuality, by the current generation solving that issue, begets yet another issue for the next. People’s notions of what is “better” thusly always remains elusive. The shallow work AI is capable of is, at best, minimally effective at generating over-generalized and perfunctory pieces. AI will never be able to replicate or replace the quality of meaningful work. It has only created a cacophany of issues, while improving very few logistical hitches, in yet another attempt at optimizing the knowledge worker’s role.
I meant to commend your “unwavering willingness”, not “unavailing.” That was an egregious error on my part.
I read an intervew ages ago (I’m 81). As I remember it was with a woman who was the head secretary for a national insurance company. She was asked to comment on how the then recent phenomenon of office word processors had increased productivity. She explained that they had reduced productivity. In the day, they used typewriters and carbon paper, and one could get maybe 5 or 6 legible copies of a document. That necessarily limited distribution for comment. With word processors, the distribution lists lengthened, so more people commented. Revisions were easier, so more revisions were necessary. And more time consumed.