I’ve got to tell you something – I’m embarrassed.  

Watching this public debate about how many public servant jobs are going to be cut in order to make way for AI is just embarrassing. 

The fact we’re having this debate at all is ultimately Nicola Willis’s fault, because she listed three expectations when she announced the reform of the public service: 

1) That agencies amalgamate 

2) That there is a cap of 55,000 people in the public sector 

3) That the public sector digitises and adopts AI 

Because AI is the new bogeyman that everybody is supposed to be afraid of, the media then became obsessed with it. They started contacting ministers’ offices and demanding to know what we’re actually meant to do with AI. The verdict, however, was many ministers weren’t actually sure what they would be doing in their portfolios. 

And it’s embarrassing in the same way it’s embarrassing watching your parents or grandparents discuss that newfangled technology that’s absolutely going to change our lives, without any real grip on its uses and limitations, because they don’t actually use it. 

It feels like blaming the public service cull in the 1980s on those new computer devices that were going to replace all the workers. Except we’re all still working, we’re just each using a computer. 

Let’s be honest about AI, okay? For those of us out there who don’t use it and ask, “What is this?”, AI is probably hugely overpromising. It’s not going to do all the things or replace all the workers that you think it will. At the moment, it’s mostly really good for summarising, drafting, searching documents, handling repetitive admin, and managing customer service. 

There are some obvious applications for AI, like helping a beneficiary find all their entitlements by going through an AI system on a computer, without having to tie up a person on the phone for an hour. 

But AI cannot really be relied on for more complex tasks that require humans, like risk assessment, ethical judgments, or political management. 

No one who actually uses AI thinks it’s going to replace 8,700 jobs – or even a quarter of those jobs, or even a tenth of them. Having this debate actually feels quite silly. 

Public service numbers need to come down with or without AI. AI doesn’t have to be part of this debate. We have 16,000 more public servants than we did nine years ago, and no one’s getting better service. So you don’t need all those people – that’s the argument. 

AI, here, is just a distraction.

I’ve got to tell you something – I’m embarrassed. &nbsp;
Watching this public debate about how many public servant jobs are going to be cut in order to make way for AI is just embarrassing.&nbsp;
The fact we’re having this debate at all is ultimately Nicola Willis’s fault, because she listed three expectations when she announced the reform of the public service:&nbsp;
1) That agencies amalgamate&nbsp;
2) That there is a cap of 55,000 people in the public sector&nbsp;
3) That the public sector digitises and adopts AI&nbsp;
Because AI is the new bogeyman that everybody is supposed to be afraid of, the media then became obsessed with it. They started contacting ministers’ offices and demanding to know what we’re actually meant to do with AI. The verdict, however, was many ministers weren’t actually sure what they would be doing in their portfolios.&nbsp;
And it’s embarrassing in the same way it’s embarrassing watching your parents or grandparents discuss that newfangled technology that’s absolutely going to change our lives, without any real grip on its uses and limitations, because they don’t actually use it.&nbsp;
It feels like blaming the public service cull in the 1980s on those new computer devices that were going to replace all the workers. Except we’re all still working, we’re just each using a computer.&nbsp;
Let’s be honest about AI, okay? For those of us out there who don’t use it and ask, “What is this?”, AI is probably hugely overpromising. It’s not going to do all the things or replace all the workers that you think it will. At the moment, it’s mostly really good for summarising, drafting, searching documents, handling repetitive admin, and managing customer service.&nbsp;
There are some obvious applications for AI, like helping a beneficiary find all their entitlements by going through an AI system on a computer, without having to tie up a person on the phone for an hour.&nbsp;
But AI cannot really be relied on for more complex tasks that require humans, like risk assessment, ethical judgments, or political management.&nbsp;
No one who actually uses AI thinks it’s going to replace 8,700 jobs – or even a quarter of those jobs, or even a tenth of them. Having this debate actually feels quite silly.&nbsp;
Public service numbers need to come down with or without AI. AI doesn’t have to be part of this debate. We have 16,000 more public servants than we did nine years ago, and no one’s getting better service. So you don’t need all those people – that’s the argument.&nbsp;
AI, here, is just a distraction.

With a straight down the middle approach, Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive on Newstalk ZB delivers the very latest news and views to New Zealanders as they wrap up their day.

Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive

Perspective with Heather du Plessis-Allan: AI is just a distraction in the public service discussion

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/3eb6548f-bcac-453e-a23c-b451000542a0/transcript