Tech Deciphered

IWhat is our children’s future? What skills should they be developing? How should schools be adapting? What will the fully functioning citizens and workers of the future look like?

A look into the landscape of the next 15 years, the future of work with human and AI interactions, the transformation of education, the safety and privacy landscapes, and a parental playbook.

Navigation:

Our co-hosts:

Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news

Bertrand Schmitt
Introduction

Welcome to Episode 72 of Tech Deciphered, about our children’s future. What is our children’s future? What skills should they be developing? How should school be adapting to AI? What would be the functioning citizens and workers of the future look like, especially in the context of the AI revolution? Nuno, what’s your take? Maybe we start with the landscape.

Nuno Goncalves Pedro
The Landscape: 2026–2040

Let’s first frame it. What do people think is going to happen? Firstly, that there’s going to be a dramatic increase in productivity, and because of that dramatic increase in productivity, there are a lot of numbers that show that there’s going to be… AI will enable some labour productivity growth of 0.1 to 0.6% through 2040, which would be a figure that would be potentially rising even more depending on use of other technologies beyond generative AI, as much as 0.5 to 3.4% points annually, which would be ridiculous in terms of productivity enhancement.

To be clear, we haven’t seen it yet. But if there are those dramatic increases in productivity expected by the market, then there will be job displacement. There will be people losing their jobs. There will be people that will need to be reskilled, and there will be a big shift that is similar to what happens when there’s a significant industrial revolution, like the Industrial Revolution of the late 19th century into the 20th century. Other numbers quoted would say that 30% of US jobs could be automated by 2030, which is a silly number, 30%, and that another 60% would see tremendously being altered. A lot of their tasks would be altered for those jobs.

There’s also views that this is obviously fundamentally a global phenomenon, that as much as 9% of jobs could be lost to AI by 2030. I think question mark if this is a net number or a gross number, so it might be 9% our loss, but then maybe there’re other jobs that will emerge. It’s very clear that the landscape we have ahead of us is if there are any significant increases in productivity, there will be job displacement. There will be job shifting. There will be the need for reskilling.

Therefore, I think on the downside, you would say there’s going to be job losses. We’ll have to reevaluate whether people should still work in general 5 days a week or not. Will we actually work in 10, 20, 30 years? I think that’s the doomsday scenario and what happens on that side of the fence. I think on the positive side, there’s also a discussion around there’ll be new jobs that emerge. There’ll be new jobs that maybe we don’t understand today, new job descriptions that actually don’t even exist yet that will emerge out this brave new world of AI.

Bertrand Schmitt
Yeah. I mean, let’s not forget how we get to a growing economy. I mean, there’s a measurement of a growing economy is GDP growth. Typically, you can simplify in two elements. One is the growth of the labour force, two, the rise of the productivity of that labour force, and that’s about it. Either you grow the economy by increasing the number of people, which in most of the Western world is not really happening, or you increase productivity. I think that we should not forget that growth of productivity is a backbone of growth for our economies, and that has been what has enabled the rise in prosperity across countries.

I always take that as a win, personally. That growth in productivity has happened over the past decades through all the technological revolutions, from more efficient factories to oil and gas to computers, to network computers, to internet, to mobile and all the improvement in science, usually on the back of technological improvement. Personally, I welcome any rise in improvement we can get in productivity because there is at this stage simply no other choice for a growing world in terms of growing prosperity.

In terms of change, we can already have a look at the past. There are so many jobs today you could not imagine they would exist 30 years ago. Take the rise of the influencer, for instance, who could have imagined that 30 years ago. Take the rise of the small mom-and-pop e-commerce owner, who could have imagined that. Of course, all the rise of IT as a profession. I mean, how few of us were there 30 years ago compared to today. I mean, this is what it was 30 years ago. I think there is a lot of change that already happened. I think as a society, we need to welcome that.

If we go back even longer, 100 years ago, 150 years ago, let’s not forget, if I take a city like Paris, we used to have tens of thousands of people transporting water manually. Before we have running water in every home, we used to have boats going to the North Pole or to the northern region to bring back ice and basically pushing ice all the way to the Western world because we didn’t have fridges at the time. I think that when we look back in time about all the jobs that got displaced, I would say, Thank you. Thank you because these were not such easy jobs.

Change is coming, but change is part of the human equation, at least. Industrial revolution, the past 250 years, it’s thanks to that that we have some improvement in living conditions everywhere. AI is changing stuff, but change is a constant, and we need to adapt and adjust. At least on my side, I’m glad that AI will be able to displace some jobs that were not so interesting to do in the first place in many situations. Maybe not dangerous like in the past because we are talking about replacing white job collars, but at least repetitive jobs are definitely going to be on the chopping block.

Nuno Goncalves Pedro
What happens in terms of shift? We were talking about some numbers earlier. The World Economic Forum also has some numbers that predicts that there is a gross job creation rate of 14% from 2025 to 2030 and a displacement rate of 8%, so I guess they’re being optimistic, so a net growth in employment. I think that optimism relates to this thesis that, for example, efficiency, in particular in production and industrial environments, et cetera, might reduce labour there while increasing the demand for labour elsewhere because there is a natural lower cost base. If there’s more automation in production, therefore there’s more disposable income for people to do other things and to focus more on their side activities. Maybe, as I said before, not work 5 days a week, but maybe work four or three or whatever it is.

What are the jobs of the future? What are the jobs that we see increasing in the future? Obviously, there’re a lot of jobs that relate to the technology side, that relate obviously to AI, that’s a little bit self-serving, and everything that relates to information technology, computer science, computer technology, computer engineering, et cetera. More broadly in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, that might actually be more needed. Because there is a broadening of all of these elements of contact with digital, with AI over time also with robots and robotics, that those jobs will increase.

There’s a thesis that actually other jobs that are a little bit more related to agriculture, education, et cetera, might not see a dramatic impact, that will still need for, I guess, teachers and the need for people working in farms, et cetera. I think this assumes that probably the AI revolution will come much before the fundamental evolution that will come from robotics afterwards.

Then there’s obviously this discussion around declining roles. Anything that’s fundamentally routine, like data entry, clinical roles, paralegals, for example, routine manufacturing, anything that’s very repetitive in nature will be taken away. I have the personal thesis that there are jobs that are actually very blue-collar jobs, like HVAC installation, maintenance, et cetera, plumbing, that will be still done by humans for a very long time because there are actually, they appear to be repetitive, but they’re actually complex, and they require manual labour that cannot be easily, I think, right now done by robots and replacements of humans. Actually, I think there’re blue-collar roles that will be on the increase rather than on decrease that will demand a premium, because obviously, they are apprenticeship roles, certification roles, and that will demand a premium.

Maybe we’re at the two ends. There’s an end that is very technologically driven of jobs that will need to necessarily increase, and there’s at the other end, jobs that are very menial but necessarily need to be done by humans, and therefore will also command a premium on the other end.

Bertrand Schmitt
I think what you say make a lot of sense. If you think about AI as a stack, my guess is that for the foreseeable future, on the whole stack, and when I say stack, I mean from basic energy production because we need a lot of energy for AI, maybe to going up to all the computing infrastructure, to AI models, to AI training, to robotics. All this stack, we see an increase in expertise in workers and everything. Even if a lot of this work will benefit from AI improvement, the boom is so large that it will bring a lot of demand for anyone working on any part of the stack. Some of it is definitely blue-collar. When you have to build a data centre or energy power station, this requires a lot of blue-collar work.

I would say, personally, I’m absolutely not a believer of the 3 or 4 days a week work week. I don’t believe a single second in that socialist paradise. If you want to call it that way. I think that’s not going to change. I would say today we can already see that breaking. I mean, if you take Europe, most European countries have a big issue with pension. The question is more to increase how long you are going to work because financially speaking, the equation is not there.

Personally, I don’t think AI would change any of that. I agree with you in terms of some jobs from electricians to gas piping and stuff. There will still be demand and robots are not going to help soon on this job. There will be a big divergence between and all those that can be automated, done by AI and robots and becoming cheaper and cheaper and stuff that requires a lot of human work, manual work. I don’t know if it will become more expensive, but definitely, proportionally, in comparison, we look so expensive that you will have second thoughts about doing that investment to add this, to add that.

I can see that when you have your own home, so many costs, some cost our product. You buy this new product, you add it to your home. It can be a water heater or something, built in a factory, relatively cheap. You see the installation cost, the maintenance cost. It’s many times the cost of the product itself.

Nuno Goncalves Pedro
Maybe it’s a good time to put a caveat into our conversation. I mean, there’s a… Roy Amara was a futurist who came up with the Amara’s Law. We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and overestimate the effect in the long run. I prefer my own law, which is, we tend to overestimate the speed at which we get to a technological revolution and underestimate its impact. I think it’s a little bit like that. I think everyone now is like, “Oh, my God, we’re going to be having the AI overlords taking over us, and AGI is going to happen pretty quickly,” and all of that.

I mean, AGI will probably happen at some point. We’re not really sure when. I don’t think anyone can tell you. I mean, there’re obviously a lot of ranges going on. Back to your point, for example, on the shift of the work week and how we work. I mean, just to be very clear, we didn’t use to have 5 days a week and 2 days a weekend. If we go back to religions, there was definitely Sabbath back in the day, and there was one day off, the day of the Lord and the day of God. Then we went to 2 days of weekend.

I remember going to Korea back in 2005, and I think Korea shifted officially to 5 days a week, working week and 2 days weekend for some of the larger business, et cetera, in 2004. Actually, it took another whatever years for it to be pervasive in society. This is South Korea, so this is a developed market. We might be at some point moving to 4 days a week. Maybe France was ahead of the game. I know Bertrand doesn’t like this, the 35-hour week.

Maybe we will have another shift in what defines the working week versus not. What defines what people need to do in terms of efficiency and how they work and all of that. I think it’s probably just going to take longer than we think. I think there’re some countries already doing it. I was reading maybe Finland was already thinking about moving to 4 days a week. There’re a couple of countries already working on it. Certainly, there’re companies already doing it as well.

Bertrand Schmitt
Yeah, I don’t know. I’m just looking at the financial equation of most countries. The disaster is so big in Western Europe, in the US. So much debt is out that needs to get paid that I don’t think any country today, unless there is a complete reversal of the finance, will be able to make a big change. You could argue maybe if we are in such a situation, it might be because we went too far in benefits, in vacation, in work days versus weekends. I’m not saying we should roll back, but I feel that at this stage, the proof is in the pudding. The finance of most developed countries are broken, so I don’t see a change coming up. Potentially, the other way around, people leaving to work more, unfortunately. We will see.

My point is that AI will have to be so transformational for the productivity for countries, and countries will have to go back to finding their ways in terms of financial discipline to reach a level where we can truly profit from that. I think from my perspective, we have time to think about it in 10, 20 years. Right now, it’s BS at this stage of this discussion.

Nuno Goncalves Pedro
Yeah, there’s a dependency, Bertrand, which is there needs to be dramatic increases in productivity that need to happen that create an expansion of economy. Once that expansion is captured by, let’s say, government or let’s say by the state, it needs to be willingly fed back into society, which is not a given. There’re some governments who are going to be like, “No, you need to work for a living.” Tough luck. There’re no handouts, there’s nothing.

There’s going to be other governments that will be pressured as well. I mean, even in a more socialist Europe, so to speak. There’re now a lot of pressures from very far-right, even extreme positions on what people need to do for a living and how much should the state actually intervene in terms of minimum salaries, et cetera, and social security. To your point, the economies are not doing well in and of themselves. Anyway, there would need to be tremendous expansion of economy and willingness by the state to give back to its citizens, which is also not a given.

Bertrand Schmitt
And good financial discipline as well. Before we reach all these three. Reaping the benefits in a tremendous way, way above trend line, good financial discipline, and then some willingness to send back. I mean, we can talk about a dream. I think that some of this discussion was, in some ways, to have a discussion so early about this. It’s like, let’s start to talk about the benefits of the aeroplane industries in 1915 or 1910, a few years after the Wright brothers flight, and let’s make a decision based on what the world will be in 30 years from now when we reap this benefit. This is just not reasonable. This is not reasonable thinking.

I remember seeing companies from OpenAI and others trying to push this narrative. It was just political agenda. It was nothing else. It was, “Let’s try to make look like AI so nice and great in the future, so you don’t complain on the short term about what’s happening.” I don’t think this is a good discussion to have for now. Let’s be realistic.

Nuno Goncalves Pedro
Just for the sake of sharing it with our listeners, apparently there’re a couple of countries that have moved towards something a bit lower than 5 days a week. Belgium, I think, has legislated the ability for you to compress your work week into 4 days, where you could do 10 hours for 4 days, so 40 hours. UAE has some policy for government workers, 4.5 days. Iceland has some stuff around 35 to 36 hours, which is France has had that 35 hour thing. Lithuania for parents. Then just trials, it’s all over the shop. United Kingdom, my own Portugal, of course, Germany, Brazil, and South Africa, and a bunch of other countries, so interesting. There’s stuff going on.

Bertrand Schmitt
For sure. I mean, France managed to bankrupt itself playing the 75 hours work week since what, 2000 or something. I mean, yeah, it’s a choice of financial suicide, I would say.

Nuno Goncalves Pedro
Wonderful.

The Future of Work: Human + AI

Maybe moving a little bit towards the future of work and the coexistence of work of human and AI, I think the thesis that exists a little bit in the market is that the more positive thesis that leads to net employment growth and net employment creation, as we were saying, there’s shifting of professions, they’re rescaling, and there’s the new professions that will emerge, is the notion that human will need to continue working alongside with machine. I’m talking about robots, I’m also talking about software. Basically software can’t just always run on its own, and therefore, software serves as a layer of augmentation, that humans become augmented by AI, and therefore, they can be a lot more productive, and we can be a lot more productive.

All of that would actually lead to a world where the efficiencies and the economic creation are incredible. We’ll have an unparalleled industrial evolution in our hands through AI. That’s one way of looking at it. We certainly at Chameleon, that’s how we think through AI and the AI layers that we’re creating with Mantis, which is our in-house platform at Chameleon, is that it’s augmenting us. Obviously, the human is still running the show at the end, making the toughest decisions, the more significant impact with entrepreneurs that we back, et cetera. AI augments us, but we run the show.

Bertrand Schmitt
I totally agree with that perspective that first AI will bring a new approach, a human plus AI. Here in that situation, you really have two situations. Are you a knowledgeable user? Do you know your field well? Are you an expert? Are you an IT expert? Are you a medical doctor? Do you find your best way to optimise your work with AI? Are you knowledgeable enough to understand and challenge AI when you see weird output? You have to be knowledgeable in your field, but also knowledgeable in how to handle AI, because even experts might say, “Whatever AI says.”

My guess is that will be the users that will benefit most from AI. Novice, I think, are in a bit tougher situation because if you use AI without truly understanding it, it’s like laying foundations on sand. Your stuff might crumble down the way, and you will have no clue what’s happening. Hopefully, you don’t put anyone in physical danger, but that’s more worrisome to me. I think some people will talk about the rise of vibe coding, for instance. I’ve seen AI so useful to improve coding in so many ways, but personally, I don’t think vibe coding is helpful. I mean, beyond doing a quick prototype or some stuff, but to put some serious foundation, I think it’s near useless if you have a pure vibe coding approach, obviously to each their own.

I think the other piece of the puzzle, it’s not just to look at human plus AI. I think definitely there will be the other side as well, which is pure AI. Pure AI replacement. I think we start to see that with autonomous cars. We are close to be there. Here we’ll be in situation of maybe there is some remote control by some humans, maybe there is local control. We are talking about a huge scale replacement of some human activities. I think in some situation, let’s talk about work farms, for instance. That’s quite a special term, but basically is to describe work that is very repetitive in nature, requires a lot of humans.

Today, if you do a loan approval, if you do an insurance claim analysis, you have hundreds, thousands, millions of people who are doing this job in Europe, in the US, or remotely outsourced to other countries like India. I think some of these jobs are fully at risk to be replaced.

Would it be 100% replacement? Probably not. But a 9:1, 10:1 replacement? I think it’s definitely possible because these jobs have been designed, by the way, to be repetitive, to follow some very clear set of rules, to improve the rules, to remove any doubt if you are not sure. I think some of these jobs will be transformed significantly. I think we see two sides. People will become more efficient controlling an AI, being able to do the job of two people at once. On the other side, we see people who have much less control about their life, basically, and whose job will simply disappear.

Nuno Goncalves Pedro
Two points I would like to make. The first point is we’re talking about a state of AI that we got here, and we mentioned this in previous episodes of Tech Deciphered, through brute force, dramatically increased data availability, a lot of compute, lower network latencies, and all of that that has led us to where we are today. But it’s brute force. The key thing here is brute force.

Therefore, when AI acts really well, it acts well through brute force, through seeing a bunch of things that have happened before. For example, in the case of coding, it might still outperform many humans in coding in many different scenarios, but it might miss hedge cases. It might actually not be as perfect and as great as one of these developers that has been doing it for decades who has this intuition and is a 10X developer.

In some ways, I think what got us here is not maybe what’s going to get us to the next level of productivity as well, which is the unsupervised learning piece, the actually no learning piece, where you go into the world and figure stuff out. That world is emerging now, but it’s still not there in terms of AI algorithms and what’s happening. Again, a lot of what we’re seeing today is the outcome of the brute force movement that we’ve had over the last decade, decade and a half.

The second point I’d like to make is to your point, Bertrand, you were going really well through, okay, if you’re a super experienced subject-matter expert, the way you can use AI is like, wow! Right? I mean, you are much more efficient, right? I was asked to do a presentation recently. When I do things in public, I don’t like to do it. If it’s a keynote, because I like to use my package stuff, there’s like six, seven presentations that I have prepackaged, and I can adapt around that. But if it’s a totally new thing, I don’t like to do it as a keynote because it requires a lot of preparation.

Therefore, I’m like, I prefer to do a fire set chat or a panel or whatever. I got asked to do something, a little bit what is taking us to this topic today around what’s happening to our children and all of that is like, “God! I need to develop this from scratch.” The honest truth is if you have domain expertise around many areas, you can do it very quickly with the aid of different tools in AI. Anything from Gemini, even with Nana Banana, to ChatGPT and other tools that are out there for you and framing, how would you do that?

But the problem then exists with people that are just at the beginning of their careers, people that have very little expertise and experience, and people that are maybe coming out of college where their knowledge is mostly theoretical. What happens to those people? Even in computer engineering, even in computer science, even in software development, how do those people get to the next level? I think that’s one of the interesting conversations to be had. What happens to the recent graduate or the recent undergrad? How do those people get the expertise they need to go to the next level? Can they just be replaced by AI agents today? What’s their role in terms of the workforce, and how do they fit into that workforce?

Bertrand Schmitt
No, I mean, that’s definitely the biggest question. I think that a lot of positions, if you are really knowledgeable, good at your job, if you are that 10X developer, I don’t think your job is at risk. Overall, you always have some exceptions, some companies going through tough times, but I don’t think it’s an issue. On the other end, that’s for sure, the recent new graduates will face some more trouble to learn on their own, start their career, and go to that 10X productivity level. But at the same time, let’s also not kid ourselves.

If we take software development, this is a profession that increase in number of graduates tremendously over the past 30 years. I don’t think everyone basically has the talent to really make it. Now that you have AI, for sure, the bar to justify why you should be there, why you should join this company is getting higher and higher. Being just okay won’t be enough to get you a career in IT. You will need to show that you are great or potential to be great. That might make things tough for some jobs. At the same time, I certainly believe there will be new opportunities that were not there before.

People will have to definitely adjust to that new reality, learn and understand what’s going on, what are the options, and also try to be very early on, very confident at using AI as much as they can because for sure, companies are going to only hire workers that have shown their capacity to work well with AI.

Nuno Goncalves Pedro
My belief is that it generates new opportunities for recent undergrads, et cetera, of building their own microbusinesses or nano businesses. To your point, maybe getting jobs because they’ll be forced to move faster within their jobs and do less menial and repetitive activities and be more focused on actual dramatic intellectual activities immediately from the get go, which is not a bad thing.

Their acceleration into knowledge will be even faster. I don’t know. It feels to me maybe there’s a positivity to it. Obviously, if you’ve stayed in a big school, et cetera, that there will be some positivity coming out of that.

The Transformation of Education

Maybe this is a good segue to education. How does education change to adapt to a new world where AI is a given? It’s not like I can check if you’re faking it on your homework or if you’re doing a remote examination or whatever, if you’re using or not tools, it’s like you’re going to use these tools. What happens in that case, and how does education need to shift in this brave new world of AI augmentation and AI enhancements to students?

Bertrand Schmitt
Yes, I agree with you. There will be new opportunities. I think people need to be adaptable. What used to be an absolute perfect career choice might not be anymore. You need to learn what changes are happening in the industry, and you need to adjust to that, especially if you’re a new graduate.

Nuno Goncalves Pedro
Maybe we’ll talk a little bit about education, Bertrand, and how education would fundamentally shift. I think one of the things that’s been really discussed is what are the core skills that need to be developed? What are the core skills that will be important in the future? I think critical thinking is probably most important than ever. The ability to actually assimilate information and discern which information is correct or incorrect and which information can lead you to a conclusion or not, for example, I think is more important than ever.

The ability to assimilate a bunch of pieces of information, make a decision or have an insight or foresight out of that information is very, very critical. The ability to be analytical around how you look at information and to really distinguish what’s fact from what’s opinion, I think is probably quite important. Maybe moving away more and more from memorisation from just cramming information into your brain like we used to do it in college, you have to know every single algorithm for whatever. It’s like, “Who gives a shit? I can just go and search it.” There’s these shifts that are not simple because I think education, in particular in the last century, has maybe been too focused on knowing more and more knowledge, on learning this knowledge.

Now it’s more about learning how to process the knowledge rather than learning how to apprehend it. Because the apprehension doesn’t matter as much because you can have this information at any point in time. The information is available to you at the touch of a finger or voice or whatever. But the ability to then use the information to do something with it is not. That’s maybe where you start distinguishing the different level degrees of education and how things are taught.

Bertrand Schmitt
Honestly, what you just say or describe could apply of the changes we went through the past 30 years. Just using internet search has for sure tremendously changed how you can do any knowledge worker job. Suddenly you have the internet at your fingertips. You can search about any topics. You have direct access to a Wikipedia or something equivalent in any field. I think some of this, we already went through it, and I hope we learned the consequence of these changes. I would say what is new is the way AI itself is working, because when you use AI, you realise that it can utter to you complete bullshit in a very self-assured way of explaining something.

It’s a bit more scary than it used to be, because in the past, that algorithm trying to present you the most relevant stuff based on some algorithm was not trying to present you the truth. It’s a list of links. Maybe it was more the number one link versus number 100. But ultimately, it’s for you to make your own opinion. Now you have some chatbot that’s going to tell you that for sure this is the way you should do it.

Then you check more, and you realise, no, it’s totally wrong. It’s definitely a slight change in how you have to apprehend this brave new world. Also, this AI tool, the big change, especially with generative AI, is the ability for them to give you the impression they can do the job at hand by themselves when usually they cannot.

Nuno Goncalves Pedro
Indeed. There’s definitely a lot of things happening right now that need to fundamentally shift. Honestly, I think in the education system the problem is the education system is barely adapted to the digital world. Even today, if you studied at a top school like Stanford, et cetera, there’s stuff you can do online, there’s more and more tools online. But the teaching process has been very centred on syllabus, the teachers, later on the professors, and everything that’s around it.

In class presence, there’s been minor adaptations. People sometimes allow to use their laptops in the classroom, et cetera, or their mobile phones. But it’s been done the other way around. It’s like the tools came later, and they got fed into the process. Now I think there needs to be readjustments. If we did this ground up from a digital first or a mobile first perspective and an AI first perspective, how would we do it? That changes how teachers and professors should interact with the classrooms, with the role of the classroom, the role of the class itself, the role of homework. A lot of people have been debating that. What do you want out of homework?

It’s just that people cram information and whatever, or do you want people to show critical thinking in a specific different manner, or some people even go one step further. It’s like, there should be no homework. People should just show up in class and homework should move to the class in some ways. Then what happens outside of the class? What are people doing at home? Are they learning tools? Are they learning something else? Are they learning to be productive in responding to teachers? But obviously, AI augmented in doing so. I mean, still very unclear what this looks like. We’re still halfway through the revolution, as we said earlier. The revolution is still in motion. It’s not realised yet.

Bertrand Schmitt
I would quite separate higher education, university and beyond, versus lower education, teenager, kids. Because I think the core up to the point you are a teenager or so, I think the school system should still be there to guide you, discovering and learning and being with your peers. I think what is new is that, again, at some point, AI could potentially do your job, do your homework. We faced similar situation in the past with the rise of Wikipedia, online encyclopedias and the stuff. But this is quite dramatically different.

Then someone could write your essays, could answer your maths work. I can see some changes where you talk about homework, it’s going to be classwork instead. No work at home because no one can trust that you did it yourself anymore going forward, but you will have to do it in the classroom, maybe spend more time at school so that we can verify that you really did your job. I think there is real value to make sure that you can still think by yourself. The same way with the rise of calculators 40 years ago, I think it was the right thing to do to say, “You know what? You still need to learn the basics of doing calculations by hand.”

Yes, I remember myself a kid thinking, “What the hell? I have a calculator. It’s working very well.” But it was still very useful because you can think in your head, you can solve complex problems in your head, you can check some output that it’s right or wrong if it’s coming from a calculator. There was a real value to still learn the basics. At the same point, it was also right to say, “You know what? Once you know the basics, yes, for sure, the calculator will take over because we’re at the point.” I think that was the right balance that was put in place with the rise of calculators. We need something similar with AI. You need to be able to write by yourself, to do stuff by yourself. At some point, you have to say, “Yeah, you know what? That long essays that we asked you to do for the sake of doing long essays? What’s the point?” At some point, yeah, that would be a true question.

For higher education, I think personally, it’s totally ripe for full disruption. You talk about the traditional system trying to adapt. I think we start to be at the stage where “It should be the other way around.” It should be we should be restarted from the ground up because we simply have different tools, different ways. I think at this stage, many companies if you take, [inaudible 00:33:01] for instance, started to recruit people after high school. They say, “You know what? Don’t waste your time in universities. Don’t spend crazy shitload of money to pay for an education that’s more or less worthless.” Because it used to be a way to filter people.

You go to good school, you have a stamp that say, “This guy is good enough, knows how to think.” But is it so true anymore? I mean, now that universities have increased the enrolment so many times over, and your university degree doesn’t prove much in terms of your intelligence or your capacity to work hard, quite frankly. If the universities are losing the value of their stamp and keep costing more and more and more, I think it’s a fair question to say, “Okay, maybe this is not needed anymore.”

Maybe now companies can directly find the best talents out there, train them themselves, make sure that ultimately it’s a win-win situation. If kids don’t have to have big loans anymore, companies don’t have to pay them as much, and everyone is winning. I think we have reached a point of no return in terms of value of university degrees, quite frankly. Of course, there are some exceptions. Some universities have incredible programs, incredible degrees. But as a whole, I think we are reaching a point of no return. Too expensive, not enough value in the degree, not a filter anymore. Ultimately, I think there is a case to be made for companies to go back directly to the source and to high school.

Nuno Goncalves Pedro
I’m still not ready to eliminate and just say higher education doesn’t have a role. I agree with the notion that it’s continuous education role that needs to be filled in a very different way. Going back to K-12, I think the learning of things is pretty vital that you learn, for example, how to write, that you learn cursive and all these things is important.

I think the role of the teacher, and maybe actually even later on of the professors in higher education, is to teach people the critical information they need to know for the area they’re in. Basic math, advanced math, the big thinkers in philosophy, whatever is that you’re studying, and then actually teach the students how to use the tools that they need, in particular, K-12, so that they more rapidly apprehend knowledge, that they more rapidly can do exercises, that they more rapidly do things. I think we’ve had a static view on what you need to learn for a while. That’s, for example, in the US, where you have AP classes, like advanced placement classes, where you could be doing math and you could be doing AP math.

You’re like, dude. In some ways, I think the role of the teacher and the interaction with the students needs to go beyond just the apprehension of knowledge. It also has to have apprehension of knowledge, but it needs to go to the apprehension of tools. Then the application of, as we discussed before, critical thinking, analytical thinking, creative thinking. We haven’t talked about creativity for all, but obviously the creativity that you need to have around certain problems and the induction of that into the process is critical. It’s particular in young kids and how they’re developing their learning skills and then actually accelerate learning.

In that way, what I’m saying, I’m not sure I’m willing to say higher education is dead. I do think this mass production of higher education that we have, in particular in the US. That’s incredibly costly. A lot of people in Europe probably don’t see how costly higher education is because we’re educated in Europe, they paid some fee. A lot of the higher education in Europe is still, to a certain extent, subsidised or done by the state. There is high degree of subsidisation in it, so it’s not really as expensive as you’d see in the US.

But someone spending 200-300K to go to a top school in the US to study for four years for an undergrad, that doesn’t make sense. For tuition alone, we’re talking about tuition alone. How does that work? Why is it so expensive? Even if I’m a Stanford or a Harvard or a University of Pennsylvania or whatever, whatever, Ivy League school, if I’m any of those, to command that premium, I don’t think makes much sense.

To your point, maybe it is about thinking through higher education in a different way. Technical schools also make sense. Your ability to learn and learn and continue to education also makes sense. You can be certified. There are certifications all around that also makes sense. I do think there’s still a case for higher education, but it needs to be done in a different mould, and obviously the cost needs to be reassessed. Because it doesn’t make sense for you to be in debt that dramatically as you are today in the US.

Bertrand Schmitt
I mean, for me, that’s where I’m starting when I’m saying it’s broken. You cannot justify this amount of money except in a very rare and stratified job opportunities. That means for a lot of people, the value of this equation will be negative. It’s like some new, indented class of people who owe a lot of money and have no way to get rid of this loan. Sorry. There are some ways, like join the government Task Force, work for the government, that at some point you will be forgiven your loans. Some people are going to just go after government jobs just for that reason, which is quite sad, frankly.

I think we need a different approach. Education can be done, has to be done cheaper, should be done differently. Maybe it’s just regular on the job training, maybe it is on the side, long by night type of approach. I think there are different ways to think about. Also, it can be very practical. I don’t know you, but there are a lot of classes that are not really practical or not very tailored to the path you have chosen. Don’t get me wrong, there is always value to see all the stuff, to get a sense of the world around you.

But this has a cost. If it was for free, different story. But nothing is free. I mean, your parents might think it’s free, but at the end of the day, it’s their taxes paying for all of this. The reality is that it’s not free. It’s costing a lot of money at the end of the day. I think we absolutely need to do a better job here. I think internet and now AI makes this a possibility. I don’t know you, but personally, I’ve learned so much through online classes, YouTube videos, and the like, that it never cease to amaze me how much you can learn, thanks to the internet, and keep up to date in so many ways on some topics. Quite frankly, there are some topics that there is not a single university that can teach you what’s going on because we’re talking about stuff that is so precise, so focused that no one is building a degree around that. There is no way.

Nuno Goncalves Pedro
I think that makes sense. Maybe bring it back to core skills. We’ve talked about a couple of core skills, but maybe just to structure it a little bit for you, our listener. I think there’s a big belief that critical thinking will be more important than ever. We already talked a little bit about that. I think there’s a belief that analytical thinking, the ability to, again, distinguish fact from opinion, ability to distinguish elements from different data sources and make sure that you see what those elements actually are in a relatively analytical manner. Actually the ability to extract data in some ways.

Active learning, proactive learning and learning strategies. I mean, the ability to proactively learn, proactively search, be curious and search for knowledge. Complex problem-solving, we also talked a little bit about it. That goes hand in hand normally with critical thinking and analysis. Creativity, we also talked about. I think originality, initiative, I think will be very important for a long time. I’m not saying AI at some point won’t be able to emulate genuine creativity. I wouldn’t go as far as saying that, but for the time being, it has tremendous difficulty doing so.

Bertrand Schmitt
But you can use AI in creative endeavours.

Nuno Goncalves Pedro
Of course, no doubt.

Bertrand Schmitt
You can do stuff you will be unable to do, create music, create videos, create stuff that will be very difficult. I see that as an evolution of tools. It’s like now cameras are so cheap to create world-class quality videos, for instance. That if you’re a student, you want to learn cinema, you can do it truly on the cheap. But now that’s the next level. You don’t even need actors, you don’t even need the real camera. You can start to make movies. It’s amazing as a learning tool, as a creative tool. It’s for sure a new art form in a way that we have seen expanding on YouTube and other places, and the same for creating new images, new music. I think that AI can be actually a tool for expression and for creativity, even in its current form.

Nuno Goncalves Pedro
Absolutely. A couple of other skills that people would say maybe are soft skills, but I think are incredibly powerful and very distinctive from machines. Empathy, the ability to figure out how the other person’s feeling and why they’re feeling like that. Adaptability, openness, the flexibility, the ability to drop something and go a different route, to maybe be intellectually honest and recognise this is the wrong way and the wrong angle.

Last but not the least, I think on the positive side, tech literacy. I mean, a lot of people are, oh, we don’t need to be tech literate. Actually, I think this is a moment in time where you need to be more tech literate than ever. It’s almost a given. It’s almost like table stakes, that you are at some tech literacy.

What matters less? I think memorisation and just the cramming of information and using your brain as a library just for the sake of it, I think probably will matter less and less. If you are a subject or a class that’s just solely focused on cramming your information, I feel that’s probably the wrong way to go.

I saw some analysis that the management of people is less and less important. I actually disagree with that. I think in the interim, because of what we were discussing earlier, that subject-matter experts at the top end can do a lot of stuff by themselves and therefore maybe need to less… They have less people working for them because they become a little bit more like superpowered individual contributors. But I feel that’s a blip rather than what’s going to happen over time.

I think collaboration is going to be a key element of what needs to be done in the future. Still, I don’t see that changing, and therefore, management needs to be embedded in it. What other skills should disappear or what other skills are less important to be developed, I guess?

Bertrand Schmitt
World learning, I’ve never, ever been a fan. I think that one for sure. But at the same time, I want to make sure that we still need to learn about history or geography. What we don’t want to learn is that stupid word learning. I still remember as a teenager having to learn the list of all the 100 French departments. I mean, who cared? I didn’t care about knowing the biggest cities of each French department. It was useless to me.

But at the same time, geography in general, history in general, there is a lot to learn from the past from the current world. I think we need to find that right balance. The details, the long list might not be that necessary. At the same time, the long arc of history, our world where it is today, I think there is a lot of value. I think you talk about analysing data. I think this one is critical because the world is generating more and more data. We need to benefit from it. There is no way we can benefit from it if we don’t understand how data is produced, what data means. If we don’t understand the base of statistical analysis.

I think some of this is definitely critical. But for stuff, we have to do less. It’s beyond world learning. I don’t know, honestly. I don’t think the core should change so much. But the tools we use to learn the core, yes, probably should definitely improve.

Nuno Goncalves Pedro
One final debate, maybe just to close, I think this chapter on education and skill building and all of that. There’s been a lot of discussion around specialisation versus generalisation, specialists versus generalists. I think for a very long time, the world has gone into a route that basically frames specialisation as a great thing. I think both of us have lived in Silicon Valley. I still do, but we both lived in Silicon Valley for a significant period of time. The centre of the universe in terms of specialisation, you get more and more specialised.

I think we’re going into a world that becomes a little bit different. It becomes a little bit like what Amazon calls athletes, right? The T-Pi-shaped people get the most value, where you’re brought on top, you’re a very strong generalist on top, and you have a lot of great soft skills around management and empathy and all that stuff. Then you might have one or two subject matter expertise areas. Could be like business development and sales or corporate development and business development or product management and something else. I think those are the winners of the future. The young winners of the future are going to be more and more T-pi-shaped, if I had to make a guess.

Specialisation matters, but maybe not as much as it matters today. It matters from the perspective that you still have to have spikes in certain areas of focus. But I’m not sure that you get more and more specialised in the area you’re in. I’m not sure that’s necessarily how humans create most value in their arena of deployment and development. Professionally, and therefore, I’m not sure education should be more and more specialised just for the sake of it. What do you think?

Bertrand Schmitt
I think that that’s a great point. I would say I could see an argument for both. I think there is always some value in being truly an expert on a topic so that you can keep digging around, keep developing the field. You cannot develop a field without people focused on developing a field. I think that one is there to stay. At the same time, I can see how in many situations, combining knowledge of multiple fields can bring tremendous value. I think it’s very clear as well. I think it’s a balance. We still need some experts. At the same time, there is value to be quite horizontal in terms of knowledge.

I think what is still very valuable is the ability to drill through whenever you need. I think that we say it’s actually much easier than before. That for me is a big difference. I can see how now you can drill through on topics that would have been very complex to go into. You will have to read a lot of books, watch a lot of videos, potentially do a new education before you grasp much about a topic. Well, now, thanks to AI, you can drill very quickly on topic of interest to you. I think that can be very valuable.

Again, if you just do that blindly, that’s calling for trouble. But if you have some knowledge in the area, if you know how to deal with AI, at least today’s AI and its constraints, I think there is real value you can deliver thanks to an ability to drill through when you don’t. For me, personally, one thing I’ve seen is some people who are generalists have lost this ability. They have lost this ability to drill through on a topic, become expert on some topic very quickly. I think you need that.

If you’re a VC, you need to analyse opportunity, you need to discover a new space very quickly. We say, I think some stuff can move much quicker than before. I’m always careful now when I see some pure generalists, because one thing I notice is that they don’t know how to do much anything any more. That’s a risk. We have example of very, very, very successful people. Take an Elon Musk, take a Steve Jobs. They have this ability to drill through to the very end of any topic, and that’s a real skill.

Sometimes I see people, you should trust the people below. They know better on this and that, and you should not question experts and stuff. Hey, guys, how is it that they managed to build such successful companies? Is their ability to drill through and challenge hardcore experts. Yes, they will bring top people in the field, but they have an ability to learn quickly a new space and to drill through on some very technical topics and challenge people the right way.

Challenge, don’t smart me. Not the, I don’t care, just do it in 10 days. No, going smartly, showing people those options, learning enough in the field to be dangerous. I think that’s a very, very important skill to have.

Nuno Goncalves Pedro
Maybe switching to the dark side and talking a little bit about the bad stuff. I think a lot of people have these questions. There’s been a lot of debate around ChatGPT. I think there’s still a couple of court cases going on, a suicide case that I recently a bit privy to of a young man that killed himself, and OpenAI and ChatGPT as a tool currently really under the magnifying glass for, are people getting confused about AI and AI looks so similar to us, et cetera.

The Ethics, Safety, and Privacy Landscape

Maybe let’s talk about the ethics and safety and privacy landscape a little bit and what’s happening.

Sadly, AI will also create the advent of a world that has still a lot of biases at scale. I mean, let’s not forget the AI is using data and data has biases. The models that are being trained on this data will have also biases that we’re seeing with AI, the ability to do things that are fake, deep fakes in video and pictures, et cetera. How do we, as a society, start dealing with that? How do we, as a society, start dealing with all the attacks that are going on?

On the privacy side, the ability for these models and for these tools that we have today to actually have memory of the conversations we’ve had with them already and have context on what we said before and be able to act on that on us, and how is that information being farmed and that data being farmed? How is it being used? For what purposes is it being used?

As I said, the dark side of our conversation today. I think we’ve been pretty positive until now. But in this world, I think things are going to get worse before they get better. Obviously, there’s a lot of money being thrown at rapid evolution of these tools. I don’t see moratoriums coming anytime soon or bans on tools coming anytime soon. The world will need to adapt very, very quickly. As we’ve talked in previous episodes, regulation takes a long time to adapt, except Europe, which obviously regulates maybe way too fast on technology and maybe not really on use cases and user flows. But how do we deal with this world that is clearly becoming more complex?

Bertrand Schmitt
I mean, on the European topic, I believe Europe should focus on building versus trying to sensor and to control and to regulate. But going back to your point, I think there are some, I mean, very tough use case when you see about voice cloning, for instance. Grandparents believing that their kids are calling them, have been kidnapped when there is nothing to it, and they’re being extorted. AI generating deepfakes that enable sextortion, that stuff. I mean, it’s horrible stuff, obviously.

I’m not for regulation here, to be frank. I think that we should for sure prosecute to the full extent of the law. The law has already a lot of tools to deal with this type of situation. But I can see some value to try to prevent that in some tools. If you are great at building tools to generate a fake voice, maybe you should make sure that you are not helping scammers. If you can generate easily images, you might want to make sure that you cannot easily generate tools that can be used for creating deep fakes and sex extortion.

I think there are things that should be done by some providers to limit such terrible use cases. At the same time, the genie is out. There is also that part around, okay, the world will need to adapt. But yeah, you cannot trust everything that is done. What could have looked like horrible might not be true. You need to think twice about some of this, what you see, what you hear. We need to adjust how we live, how we work, but also how we prevent that. New tools, I believe, will appear. We will learn maybe to be less trustful on some stuff, but that is what it is.

Nuno Goncalves Pedro
Maybe to follow up on that, I fully agree with everything you just said. We need to have these tools that will create boundary conditions around it as well. I think tech will need to fight tech in some ways, or we’ll need to find flaws in tech, but I think a lot of money needs to be put in it as well. I think my shout-out here, if people are listening to us, are entrepreneurs, et cetera, I think that’s an area that needs more and more investment, an area that needs more and more tooling platforms that are helpful to this.

It’s interesting because that’s a little bit like how OpenAI was born. OpenAI was born to be a positive AI platform into the future. Then all of a sudden we’re like, “Can we have tools to control ChatGPT and all these things that are out there now?” How things have changed, I guess. But we definitely need to have, I think, a much more significant investment into these toolings and platforms than we do have today.

Otherwise, I don’t see things evolving much better. There’s going to be more and more of this. There’s going to be more and more deep fakes, more and more, lack of contextualisation. There’s countries now that allow you to get married with not a human. It’s like you can get married to an algorithm or a robot or whatever. It’s like, what the hell? What’s happening now? It’s crazy. Hopefully, we’ll have more and more boundary conditions.

Bertrand Schmitt
Yeah, I think it will be a boom for cybersecurity. No question here. Tools to make sure that is there a better trust system or detecting the fake. It’s not going to be easy, but it has been the game in cybersecurity for a long time. You have some new Internet tools, some new Internet products. You need to find a difference against it and the constant war between the attackers and the defender.

Nuno Goncalves Pedro
The Parental Playbook: Actionable Strategies

Maybe last but not the least in today’s episode, the parent playbook I’m a parent, what should I do I’ll actually let you start first. Bertrand, I’m parent-alike, but I am, sadly, not a parent, so I’ll let you start first, and then I’ll share some of my perspectives as well as a parent-like figure.

Bertrand Schmitt
Yeah, as a parent to an 8-year, I would say so far, no real difference than before. She will do some homework on an iPad. But beyond that, I cannot say I’ve seen at this stage so much difference. I think it will come up later when you have different type of homeworks when the kids start to be able to use computers on their own.

What I’ve seen, however, is some interesting use cases. When my daughter is not sure about the spelling, she simply asks, Siri. “Hey, Siri, how do you spell this or this or that?” I didn’t teach her that. All of this came on her own. She’s using Siri for a few stuff for work, and I’m quite surprised in a very smart, useful way. It’s like, that’s great. She doesn’t need to ask me. She can ask by herself. She’s more autonomous. Why not? It’s a very efficient way for her to work and learn about the world. I probably feel sad when she asks Siri if she’s her friend. That does not feel right to me. But I would say so far, so good. I’ve seen only AI as a useful tool and with absolutely very limited risk.

At the same time, for sure, we don’t let our kid close to any social media or the like. I think some of this stuff is for sure dangerous. I think as a parent, you have to be very careful before authorising any social media. I guess at some point you have no choice, but I think you have to be very careful, very gradual, and putting a lot of controls and safety mechanism I mean, you talk about kids committing suicide. It’s horrible.

As a parent, I don’t think you can have a bigger worry than that. Suddenly your kids going crazy because someone bullied them online, because someone tried to extort them online. This person online could be someone in the same school or some scammer on the other side of the world. This is very scary. I think we need to have a lot of control on our kids’ digital life as well as being there for them on a lot of topics and keep drilling into them how a lot of this stuff online is not true, is fake, is not important, and being careful, yes, to raise them, to be critical of stuff, and to share as much as possible with our parents.

I think We have to be very careful. But I would say some of the most dangerous stuff so far, I don’t think it’s really coming from AI. It’s a lot more social media in general, I would say, but definitely AI is adding another layer of risk.

Nuno Goncalves Pedro
From my perspective, having helped raise three kids, having been a parent-like role today, what I would say is I would highlight against the skills that I was talking about before, and I would work on developing those skills. Skills that relate to curiosity, to analytical behaviours at the same time as being creative, allowing for both, allowing for the left brain, right brain, allowing for the discipline and structure that comes with analytical thinking to go hand in hand with doing things in a very, very different way and experimenting and failing and doing things and repeating them again.

All the skills that I mentioned before, focusing on those skills. I was very fortunate to have a parental unit. My father and my mother were together all their lives: my father, sadly, passing away 5 years ago that were very, very different, my mother, more of a hacker in mindset. Someone was very curious, medical doctor, allowing me to experiment and to be curious about things around me and not simplifying interactions with me, saying it as it was with a language that was used for that particular purpose, allowing me to interact with her friends, who were obviously adults.

And then on the other side, I have my father, someone who was more disciplined, someone who was more ethical, I think that becomes more important. The ability to be ethical, the ability to have moral standing. I’m Catholic. There is a religious and more overlay to how I do things. Having the ability to portray that and pass that to the next generation and sharing with them what’s acceptable and what’s not acceptable, I think is pretty critical and even more critical than it was before. The ability to be structured, to say and to do what you say, not just actually say a bunch of stuff and not do it.

So, I think those things don’t go out of use, but I would really spend a lot more focus on the ability to do critical thinking, analytical thinking, having creative ideas, obviously, creating a little bit of a hacker mindset, how to cut corners to get to something is actually really more and more important.

The second part is with all of this, the overlay of growth mindset. I feel having a more flexible mindset rather than a fixed mindset. What I mean by that is not praising your kids or your grandchildren for being very intelligent or very beautiful, which are fixed things, they’re static things, but praising them for the effort they put into something, for the learning that they put into something, for the process, raising the process rather than just necessarily the outcome. I feel that’s more important than it ever was. I think growth mindset is critical in the world that we are in today.

Then obviously, last but not the least, the ability to It creates some ground rules around this connection, around the offline world, around socialising without having your phone around you, be it not having your phone at the table when you’re having a meal or having specific times of the day where there is no plugged in, there’s no mobile phone, there’s no whatever. The ability to have families, I think, interact in an environment where the mobile phone is not there. There is no technology necessarily there. The hikes in nature, the interactions with other people in sports, et cetera, et cetera, not esports, but sports. All those, I feel, should be greatly emphasised going forward because that, I think, is what will create these humans that we want to be successful, that would want to bring us into the future in a positive manner.

Bertrand Schmitt
I think that’s very good point. I certainly love the growth mindset. I also think that you have to find a balance between respect for authorities, your parents, for instance, versus at the same time questioning enough authorities, Because not all authorities might have your best interest at heart. I guess your parents usually have. But beyond your parents, I think that’s a really big question. From teachers to the government, they might not all have your best interest at heart. You have to be-

Nuno Goncalves Pedro
To influencers.

Bertrand Schmitt
To influencers, for sure.

Nuno Goncalves Pedro
To influencers, definitely not.

Bertrand Schmitt
Not even a question. But yeah, you have to find the right balance because there is a lot of evil masquerading as a figure of authority or abusing their figure of authority. So, that part, I think, is quite critical. As you say, that limit on the digital self. Digital self is part of your future and part of how you grow and learn and be a successful person in your life. But at the same time, you have to find the right balance. You have to be careful about red or blue pill that you’re going to take, I guess.

My personal take is that I think it’s a balance you have to control. You cannot be oblivious to new technologies. You have to learn them. You have to be You have to be comfortable with them. You have to understand them and their limits. At the same time, be careful going all the way. Be careful losing yourself. The real world is important and critical.

Nuno Goncalves Pedro
Conclusion

In conclusion, our children’s future is, we still believe, bright. A lot of shifting will happen. A lot of job displacement, reskilling will be needed, but new jobs will emerge. We’re positive. We are optimistic about the future that our children will have. In the words of the great passed Whitney Houston, “We believe that children are our future, and they should be taught well, and that they will lead the way.” Thank you, Bertrand.

Bertrand Schmitt
Thank you, Nuno.