I’ve spent my life in manufacturing – real factories, real people, real machines. I’ve lived through multiple waves of technology – computer numerical control machines, robotics, enterprise resource planning systems and automation. Each time, the same fear surfaced: This will replace us.
Each time, the truth proved more nuanced.
Artificial intelligence is the next wave. And while the headlines swing between hype and alarm, the real question isn’t whether AI will change work. It will.
The question is what kind of work and what kind of humans it will shape.
I practice Lean thinking, which is often misunderstood. Lean methodology is not about squeezing more output from people. It is a human-centered management philosophy built on two pillars: creating value and respecting people.
Lean defines waste as anything that consumes human time, energy or creativity without adding value. One of the most dangerous forms of waste is work without meaning when people are treated as inputs to be optimized rather than thinkers capable of improving the system.
That distinction matters in the AI conversation.
Used well, AI can remove administrative friction, bring insights to the surface faster, and free people to focus on problem-solving, mentoring and innovation. That’s progress.
Used poorly, AI becomes a substitute for leadership. It replaces conversation with dashboards, judgment with scores, and trust with surveillance.
That is not progress. That is the automation of bad management.
At the World Economic Forum in Davos, leadership thinker Adil Dalal framed this challenge clearly: AI is no longer just a tool; it increasingly influences judgment. When decision-making shifts from supporting humans to substituting for them, human agency begins to erode.
In manufacturing, context matters. Experience matters. Responsibility matters. Those cannot be reduced to an algorithmic output.
The goal should not be man versus machine. It should be man and machine each doing what they do best. Machines excel at repetition and scale. Humans excel at context, ethics and creative problem-solving.
If AI strengthens those capabilities, we should welcome it. If it diminishes them, we should pause.
Rhode Island’s proposed legislation addressing artificial intelligence in employment reflects legitimate concerns: transparency, fairness and accountability. Those are worthy objectives.
But legislation is a blunt instrument. Innovation is not.
In Lean practice, we are cautious about locking in standards before fully understanding the system. When we standardize too early, we risk freezing assumptions that later prove incomplete or incorrect. The result isn’t safety; it’s stagnation.
That raises an important question: are we legislating from deep understanding, or from uncertainty about what may come?
This is not an argument against guardrails. It is an argument for informed guardrails. Policymakers should spend time on factory floors, in hospitals, in small businesses and in research labs. They should talk with workers, employers, technologists and universities studying real-world impact. Good policy emerges from proximity to practice, not distance from it.
As I’ve reflected on this debate, I realized why it matters so much to me.
It’s my grandchildren. They’re 3, 5, and not yet 1. They will grow up in a world where artificial intelligence isn’t new or novel; it’s ambient. It will shape how they learn, how they interact, how they reason.
I don’t claim to know exactly how AI will affect human capability. None of us does. But I know this: what we outsource, we stop practicing.
Judgment, patience, empathy and critical thinking are not guaranteed traits. They are developed through friction, effort and human interaction. If we are not intentional, we risk raising a generation optimized for efficiency but deprived of depth.
That is the tradeoff we should be debating.
Not whether AI exists but whether the outcomes it produces are ones we are willing to accept for those who won’t get a vote for decades.
I do not believe AI will replace the workforce. I believe it will reshape work. And if we lead with intention, it can make work more human, not less.
More thinking.
More collaboration.
More craftsmanship.
More human-to-human connection.
Manufacturing has always thrived when people and machines work together. The responsibility before us is not to fear the technology or rush to restrain it blindly. It is to ensure that human judgment, dignity and accountability remain at the center of the system.
The future of work is not something that happens to us. It is something we choose.
Karl Wadensten is a member of the R.I. Commerce Corp. board and president of VIBCO Inc., a manufacturing company based in Richmond. He has spent more than 25 years helping build and retain jobs in Rhode Island’s small- and midsize business sector.
