We can decide what to do with artificial intelligence
Em cada grande virada tecnológica da história, a humanidade enfrentou o mesmo temor: que as máquinas tornassem os homens supérfluos. O economista Christopher Pissarides, laureado com o Nobel em 2010, oferece uma perspectiva que desloca esse medo do inevitável para o escolhível — a inteligência artificial não dita nosso destino no mercado de trabalho, mas nos convoca a decidir, com consciência e deliberação, que tipo de futuro queremos construir. A transformação virá, como sempre veio, mas o que emerge do outro lado depende menos da tecnologia e mais da sabedoria coletiva com que a conduzimos.
- A pergunta que assombra governos, trabalhadores e empresas — a IA vai destruir empregos em massa? — recebe uma resposta direta de um dos economistas mais respeitados do mundo: não, se fizermos as escolhas certas.
- A tensão real não está na tecnologia em si, mas na passividade: Pissarides alerta que o risco não é a IA agir sozinha, mas os humanos abdicarem da responsabilidade de orientá-la.
- Enquanto máquinas assumem tarefas repetitivas e algorítmicas, habilidades como criatividade, empatia e cuidado genuíno tornam-se escassas e, portanto, mais valiosas — uma inversão que poucos antecipam.
- Setores como saúde, assistência social e hospitalidade estão no centro dessa transformação, precisando investir urgentemente no desenvolvimento de capacidades humanas que nenhuma automação consegue replicar.
- O caminho para uma transição sem colapso existe, segundo Pissarides, mas exige ação concreta: requalificação da força de trabalho, políticas deliberadas e a recusa em otimizar o futuro apenas por eficiência e lucro.
Christopher Pissarides, professor da London School of Economics e vencedor do Nobel de Economia em 2010, respondeu recentemente à pergunta que mais inquieta o mundo do trabalho: a inteligência artificial vai provocar desemprego em massa? Sua resposta foi firme, mas carregada de condição — não, desde que façamos as escolhas certas. "A inteligência artificial está sob controle humano", afirmou. "Podemos decidir o que fazer."
Pissarides não minimiza a transformação que está por vir. Profissões desaparecerão. Mas esse processo, argumenta ele, não é novo. A chegada da eletricidade e do automóvel também eliminou categorias inteiras de trabalho — e ainda assim o mundo não afundou em desemprego permanente. Novos tipos de ocupação surgiram. A IA, segundo ele, seguirá o mesmo arco histórico.
O que muda, desta vez, é o que os humanos passam a oferecer. À medida que as máquinas dominam o repetitivo e o codificável, as capacidades genuinamente humanas — criatividade, empatia, imaginação, cuidado — tornam-se mais raras e mais valiosas. Setores como saúde, assistência social e hospitalidade serão os mais afetados por essa reconfiguração, precisando investir profundamente nessas habilidades que nenhum algoritmo consegue substituir: a enfermeira que lembra seu nome, o terapeuta que ouve o que não foi dito, o anfitrião que faz você se sentir em casa.
No fundo, o argumento de Pissarides é um chamado à agência. A IA é uma ferramenta, e ferramentas se moldam por quem as usa. Podemos investir em requalificação, preservar espaço para o julgamento humano, recusar a lógica de otimização pura. A catástrofe não é inevitável — mas evitá-la exige que as escolhas que ele diz estarem disponíveis sejam, de fato, feitas.
Christopher Pissarides, the 2010 Nobel laureate in economics and a professor at the London School of Economics, sat down recently to discuss what artificial intelligence means for the future of work. The question everyone asks—will AI destroy jobs en masse?—landed differently in his hands. His answer was measured but firm: no, not if we choose otherwise.
"Artificial intelligence is under human control," Pissarides said in an interview with CNN Money's Capital Insights program. "We can decide what to do." This framing matters. He wasn't dismissing the disruption ahead, but rather insisting that the outcome depends on choices we make now, not on some predetermined technological destiny. The economist went further, suggesting that AI might actually enhance human capital during this period of automation and machine replacement—that the technology could, paradoxically, make people more valuable, not less.
Yet Pissarides was clear-eyed about what's coming. The labor market will transform. Professions will vanish. This is not new, he argued. It happened before. When electricity arrived, when the automobile was invented, entire categories of work disappeared. The blacksmith, the lamplighter, the horse handler—they're gone now, but the world didn't collapse into permanent unemployment. Instead, new kinds of work emerged. The pattern repeats. AI will follow the same arc.
What changes, though, is what humans bring to the table. As machines take over the repetitive, the tedious, the algorithmic—the work that can be codified and automated—the distinctly human capacities become scarce and therefore valuable. Creativity. Empathy. The ability to imagine something that doesn't yet exist. The capacity to understand another person's suffering and respond with care. These soft skills, as they're called in business schools and HR departments, will command higher premiums in the economy ahead.
Certain sectors will feel this shift most acutely. Healthcare and social care—the work of tending to people's bodies and minds—will need to invest heavily in developing these human-centered abilities. The same goes for hospitality and entertainment, industries built on creating experiences and making people feel welcome. You cannot automate genuine attention. You cannot replace the nurse who remembers your name, the therapist who hears what you're really saying, the host who makes you feel at home. These roles will likely expand, not contract, as machines handle the administrative burden and the routine tasks that surround them.
Pissarides's argument rests on a crucial assumption: that we exercise the control we have. Artificial intelligence is a tool, and tools can be wielded in different ways. The economist is saying we're not passive observers of some technological inevitability. We can shape how AI enters the workplace, how quickly, in what sectors, with what safeguards. We can invest in retraining. We can value the skills machines cannot replicate. We can choose not to optimize purely for efficiency and profit, but to preserve space for human judgment and human connection.
The question, then, is not whether AI will change work. It will. The question is whether we'll prepare for that change deliberately, or stumble into it. Pissarides seems to believe the former is possible—that we have the knowledge and the agency to navigate this transition without the catastrophic unemployment that haunts the popular imagination. But that belief carries an implicit demand: that we actually do the work of preparation, that we actually make the choices he's saying are available to us.
Citações Notáveis
Artificial intelligence is under human control. We can decide what to do.— Christopher Pissarides, Nobel laureate economist
Soft skills—creativity, empathy, and other distinctly human capacities—will become increasingly valuable as machines handle repetitive tasks.— Christopher Pissarides
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
When Pissarides says AI is under human control, what does he actually mean? Doesn't the technology have its own momentum?
He's making a distinction between the technology itself and how we deploy it. Yes, AI develops according to its own logic once built. But the decision to deploy it in a particular industry, at a particular pace, with particular safeguards—that's human choice. We're not forced to automate everything just because we can.
But companies compete. If one firm automates aggressively and cuts costs, won't others have to follow or die?
That's the real tension he's not fully addressing. Individual rational choice can lead to collective outcomes nobody wanted. But his point is that policy, regulation, and investment in human skills can reshape those incentives. It's not automatic.
He mentions soft skills becoming more valuable. Isn't that just saying some people will do better while others get left behind?
Exactly. He's not saying everyone will be fine. He's saying the *type* of work that survives will shift. If you have creativity, empathy, judgment—those become your competitive advantage. If you don't, and you can't develop them, you're vulnerable. That's a real inequality problem dressed up in optimistic language.
Healthcare and hospitality—he says those sectors will need more soft skills. But couldn't AI eventually handle those too?
Theoretically, yes. But there's something about care work that resists full automation. You can't fully replace the human presence in a hospital room or a conversation with a therapist. At some point, the human element *is* the service. That's what he's betting on.
So his optimism depends on us actually making different choices than we're currently making?
Completely. He's not saying the future is guaranteed to be good. He's saying it's not predetermined to be bad—if we act deliberately. That's a much more fragile kind of hope.