We stand at an inflection point where artificial intelligence reshapes what we do and who we become in the process. The debate around AI typically oscillates between two poles: augmentation, where machines enhance human capability, and automation, where they gradually replace it entirely. But there's also an alternative emerging, amplification, where AI becomes a mirror and multiplier of what makes each of us irreducibly human. That distinction matters.

New research analyzing millions of job postings reveals a striking paradox: there's a 0.87 correlation between roles experiencing the greatest automation effects and those experiencing the greatest augmentation effects. The jobs most vulnerable to automation are simultaneously those most empowered by AI. Tasks are disappearing and intensifying at the same time, within the same roles. Skills most exposed to AI automation saw demand decline by 16% compared to baseline, while skills most exposed to augmentation saw demand increase by 7%.

Meanwhile, other research shows that while generative AI enhances individual creativity, it simultaneously narrows collective diversity. Stories written with AI assistance scored higher on creativity metrics, yet became sadly similar to one another, a creative convergence where everyone becomes slightly better while becoming slightly more alike.

Driven by our desire for efficiency, we are walking eyes wide shut into an automation trap thinly veiled by augmentation's clothing. When we outsource ideation to the same algorithms trained on the same datasets, fed the same prompts, optimized for the same........

© Psychology Today