What makes a poor POV? Let’s take a look at this article, “Yes, AI Will Take Your Job” as an example.
AI is progressing at such a rapid pace that it will soon replace every human job, across all industries, within the next decade. There’s no need for debate—automation is inevitable, and resistance is futile. Blah, blah blah
The article presents a one-dimensional argument, claiming that AI will replace jobs in selected industries “in the near future” without considering varied outcomes across different industries, job types, or skill levels. There is no mention of job creation in new fields, or the potential for AI to augment human labor rather than replace it entirely.
This is the sort of alarmist, clickbait that makes for a forgettable POV. Instead of serving up an apocalyptic future without considering alternative possibilities, what about offering a broader discussion talking about efforts at reskilling, upskilling, or adaptation. The writer also ignores evidence from previous technological revolutions where new industries emerged, and workers adapted. Good opinion pieces explore the complexity of an issue, rather than resorting to fear-mongering.
The writer ignores contradictory evidence or opposing perspectives and doesn’t mention the growing body of evidence suggesting that AI will create new types of jobs, enhance productivity, or that certain industries—like healthcare, creative fields, or education—are less susceptible to full automation.
Maybe some – all? – of these predictions will come true. But strong arguments rely on facts and research, not just opinions.
If you want to improve your content with better POV’s, connect with us by emailing hireus@bigvalley.co.
