Buổi 50: Writing Task 2 – Discussion: tự động hóa xóa bỏ hay tạo ra việc làm?

As automation and artificial intelligence become more capable, there is growing disagreement about their effect on employment. While some fear that these technologies will leave large numbers of people without work, others are confident that they will generate more jobs than they eliminate. In my view, both positions contain some truth, but the outcome depends less on the technology itself than on how societies manage the transition.

Those who predict widespread unemployment point to the range of tasks that machines can now perform. Earlier waves of automation mainly affected physical and routine work, but newer systems can write reports, analyse images and answer customer queries – tasks once thought to require human intelligence. If these capabilities spread quickly, workers in many occupations may have little time to adapt, and those in mid-career may find that the skills they have spent years developing are suddenly in less demand.

On the other hand, optimists argue that history points in the opposite direction. When cash machines were introduced, for instance, many expected bank staff to disappear; instead, in some countries banks were able to open more branches and redeploy employees to advisory roles. More generally, technology tends to raise productivity, which lowers costs and creates demand for new products and services – and, with them, new kinds of work, many of which could not have been imagined beforehand.

I believe the optimists are probably right about the long run, but that this offers little comfort to people who lose their jobs in the meantime. The real risk is not that work will disappear altogether but that new jobs will require skills, or be located in places, that displaced workers cannot easily reach. Whether automation proves beneficial overall will therefore depend largely on whether governments and employers invest in retraining and provide adequate support during periods of transition.

In conclusion, automation is unlikely to cause permanent mass unemployment, but it may well cause serious short-term disruption. Managing that disruption fairly is the key challenge.

Subject: Supplier review – agreed scope

Hi Lan,

Thanks for the meeting this morning. Just to confirm what we agreed:

Included: document reviews for the first two suppliers, with summary reports by Friday 4 December. Not included: the third supplier, whose records are still incomplete – we'll revisit this once they arrive.

If the third review becomes urgent, I'll need to move the training update to the following week.

Please let me know if I've missed anything.

Best regards, Duc