Human workers get a reprieve, for now, from job AI displacement. It’s all about cost, a new report concluded.
Hardly a day goes by without career professionals bumping into a news report showing their jobs are in jeopardy due to artificial intelligence. It even feels like the news media is piling on at this point, with predictions of dire consequences for human workers a common refrain.
But hold the pink slip.
A new study out by MIT reports that companies replacing workers with AI tools and applications is premature, and it’s all due to cost.
The report, titled “Beyond Exposure: Which Tasks Are Cost Effective to Automate With Computer Vision”, is led by Maja S. Svanberg, a technology and policy analyst at MIT. In it, Svanberg and her team studied the cost-effectiveness of replacing human workers with artificial intelligence, using AI-based image and video applications to complete tasks.
Not Worth the Trouble – Yet
So far, the results show that human employees are safer from an AI workplace invasion than they may think.
This from the report.
A simple hypothetical example makes clear why (AI job costs) considerations are so important.
Consider a small bakery evaluating whether to automate with computer vision. One task that bakers do is to visually check their ingredients to ensure they are of sufficient quality (e.g. unspoiled).
This task could theoretically be replaced with a computer vision system by adding a camera and training the system to detect food that has gone bad. Even if this visual inspection task could be separated from other parts of the production process, would it be cost effective to do so?
Bureau of Labor Statistics O*NET data imply that checking food quality comprises roughly 6% of the duties of a baker. A small bakery with five bakers making typical salaries ($48,000 each per year), thus has potential labor savings from automating this task of $14,000 per year. This amount is far less than the cost of developing, deploying and maintaining a computer vision system and so we would conclude that it is not economical to substitute human labor with an AI system at this bakery.
The conclusion from this example, that human workers are more economically-attractive for firms (particularly those without scale), turns out to be widespread.
We find that only 23% of worker compensation “exposed” to AI computer vision would be cost-effective for firms to automate because of the large upfront costs of AI systems.
With only approximately one quarter of jobs worth flipping from a financial standpoint, it’s too early for companies to start replacing human workers with AI bots, tools and applications.
That outlook may not stand even two or three years from now, but workers can find solace in the motion that they’re too valuable to be replaced by AI right now.
And too cost efficient, as well.

Brian O’Connell, a former Wall Street bond trader and best-selling author, is a prominent figure in the finance industry. With a substantial background as an ex-Wall Street trader, he has authored two best-selling books: ‘The 401k Millionaire’ and ‘CNBC’s Creating Wealth’, demonstrating his profound knowledge of finance and investing.
Brian is also a finance and business writer for esteemed national platforms and publications, including CNN, TheStreet.com, CBS News, The Wall Street Journal, U.S. News & World Report, Forbes, and Fox News.