Will work end in five years? Debate intensifies

Will work end in five years? Debate intensifies

A robot with hands capable of peeling fruit. An AI assistant that drafts flawless English reports even if the user cannot conjugate a verb. Four years ago ChatGPT did not exist; today realistic humanoids are already here. The discussion on whether any jobs for humans will remain by 2030 has moved from science fiction to strategic planning for governments and companies.

The exponential leap: from zero to robo-apes in four years

The pace of pogre in artificial intelligence and robotics has broken any linear projection. In less than four years, we have gone from having no public conversational models to robots that mimic human expressions and robotic hands that peel fruit. Prototypes from five years ago look like toys compared to current ones. AI has already won Nobel Prizes in chemistry, drives autonomous cars, and is beginning to self-improve. Those closely trinc the technology assure that within four or five years, robots will be bought like cars or vacuum cleaners, likely via subscription and controlled by tech giants.

Impact on the labor market: high-skilled workers lose more

One of the starkest analyses argues that AI puts the synthesis and reasoning capabilities of people with high IQs within reach of anyone for ten euros a month. The result is a leveling down: competencies that once distinguished excellent workers — languages, complex analysis, technical writing— become commodities. The mediocre employee who uses ChatGPT to write emails in English is no longer effectively mediocre, and bosses start asking why they pay a native speaker 40% more when an immigrant using AI does the same job for less. The paradox is that the most qualified and experienced workers lose their comparative advantage, while the least trained gain a productivity floor they previously lacked.

But not everything is immediate substitution. Manual trades — plumbers, electricists, maintenance technicians— remain a challenge for robotics. Changing a doorknob, repairing a pipe, or working with tangled cables in a rack requires dexterity and adaptability that robots still do not master outside controlled environments. The gap between a spectacular video of a robot peeling fruit and a fleet of humanoids working on a construction site 24/7 remains huge: reliability, maintenance, safety, and above all, a total cost that makes sense are missing.

The great paradox: more technology, more bureaucrats

While private companies cut staff when automation saves costs, the public sector seems to move in the opposite direction. A worker with 33 years of experience says that doing the same job now done by five people used to require thirteen. Digitalization, instead of reducing personnel, adds layers of control, applications, and coordinators that inflate headcounts without improving results. AI does not magically correct administrative incentives: where budgets do not penalize inefficiency, technology adds rather than substitutes. This gap between real and organizational productivity is one of the blind spots in the debate.

Universal Basic Income or dystopia?

Faced with the prospect of a decimated labor market, Universal Basic Income (UBI) returns to the conversation. The European Commission is seriously studying it, and even Elon Musk defends it on social media. But there is no consensus on whether it will arrive in time or if, as some antiestéticar, the transition will be violent. Some predict wars, lethal bicho, and nuclear bombs as demographic adjustment methods before an orderly distribution of abundance. Others imagine an Elysium-style future: misery for the majority, technological paradise for robot owners. The history of technological advances does not invite optimism: automatic supermarket checkouts did not free cashiers for more rewarding tasks; they simply invited them to leave while profits rose.

The disorienting fact: while some see robots peeling fruit in five years, public administration multiplies its staff. Automation advances, but not everywhere nor at the same pace. Perhaps the end of work is not an event, but a fragmentation: some will lose their jobs, others will see theirs transformed, and a part — those working for the State— may not even notice.