The Great De-skilling

Technology isn't going to replace us. But it's going to make some skills worth more than others.

If you're over the age of 30, chances are that somewhere you have an envelope of old photos, and that many of these photos are bad. They may feature the photographer's finger creeping into the frame. They may be over-exposed, rendering a beach party as a ghostly snowscape, or pitch black, because you left the lens cap on. In the pre-digital days, many of us were grateful if one shot in 20 turned out OK.

But perhaps your pictures were different. Perhaps you are a highly skilled photographer. Perhaps you knew exactly which type of 35mm film was appropriate for which lighting conditions, and for how long you needed to set your exposures, and which aperture size was needed to achieve the desired depth of field.

If so, you may well have mixed feelings about the past 20 years. Digital technology has radically improved the quality (and quantity) of amateur photography. At the same time, it's downgraded skills that once marked out a good photographer from a bad one.

It's a trend that's had major implications for professional photographers. Today, many other occupations face the same kind of de-skilling, due to the rise of technologies such as generative AI. Can photography offer clues as to how this will unfold for the rest of us?

De-skilling, but only some skills

The evidence from the field of photography is that actually, your job is probably quite safe.

While it's true that a couple of years ago the New York Times found that some couples no longer bother with a wedding photographer, because they’d rather crowdsource their wedding snaps from guests, they don't seem to be in the majority. According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Employment of photographers is projected to grow 4 percent from 2022 to 2032, about as fast as the average for all occupations."

At first this seems a little counter-intuitive. Surely if digital technology has levelled the playing field, why pay for a pro? But like the faces looming from a grainy photograph of grandma's 85th birthday gathering, look closely and answers start to emerge.

The first is that neither technical craft nor digital wizardry can replace the two key ingredients of a good picture – an interesting subject and skilled composition. These rely on a photographer’s ability to be in the right place at the right time, having a keen eye for arresting images, and a sensitive disposition towards visual storytelling, which means including just enough context in the frame to illuminate the subject, but not so much that the image becomes cluttered.

A second answer is that the best photographers have the ability to talk about their work in a compelling way, and by doing so, to capture the attention of an audience. By explaining why they do things the way they do, and how it sets them apart from the crowd, they demonstrate the value of their brand through the magic of canny marketing. Work, and money, ensues.

A third answer is that while technology has narrowed the gap between amateur and professional photography in some areas, it has widened it in others. A wedding photographer equipped with a drone will capture images that an amateur with a smartphone will not. Being one step ahead continues to pay dividends.

What this means for the rest of us

Technology is making this ability to "see the big picture" (pun intended) relatively more valuable, whether in terms of product, client perceptions or the adoption of other tech. It's a lesson that can be applied in plenty of other fields where tech is eroding the advantages of traditional craft.

A software engineer who can visualise the experience of an end-user, for example, may be safer in her job than someone with merely an exhaustive knowledge of, say, JavaScript. Lawyers who understand their clients' business strategy will be better placed to give advice – and thus more in demand – than those with just a laser-like ability to spot contractual flaws, especially since the rise of LegTech like contract-analysis software. Tax specialists who understand how to balance risk and compliance in line with their company's strategy may be more valued than those with a voluminous knowledge of legislation. And so on.

The scapegoat economy

These examples also highlight another reason why you probably won't lose your job to AI. When something goes wrong, somebody needs to take responsibility.

Legend has it that in the early 1900s, department stores in the US employed people whose job it was to be "fired" in front of dissatisfied customers, in order to show that strong action was being taken to redress a complaint. Some of these "fired men" claimed to have been dismissed at least six times a day.

While not everyone's dream job - and quite possibly apocryphal - this example highlights the need for responsibility and accountability, and it’s another reason why humans and AI will work together - our collective need to account for how and why things happened. Blaming a computer won't cut it. Tesla's self-driving cars, for instance, require drivers (for now, at least) to keep their eyes on the road and to have their hands on the wheel at all times. Ultimately, the buck still stops with humans, for legal reasons as much as technological ones.

Technical knowhow will become less important than the ability to explain how you're working, how you're making best use of the available tech, and why your approach makes sense intellectually, even if things sometimes don't go according to plan. If you can provide reasons in terms of your clients' wants and needs, so much the better.

Framing an issue, just like framing a picture, is a matter of selecting and presenting just the right amount of information. It’s how the professionals of our new digital age will display their skills and focus us on the subjects that matter most.