Prof. Dr. Klaus Mainzer is a guest at the Engineering and IT Conference. He is discussing the topic “The State and Future of Artificial Intelligence: Rethinking the Human-Machine Relationship?” with around 300 technology experts and union representatives from more than 100 companies. In an interview with our editorial team, he discusses how important it is to integrate artificial intelligence into our industry—and how we can successfully ensure that employees receive the necessary training.
Mr. Mainzer, when we talk about artificial intelligence, images from Hollywood come to mind. How do these relate to artificial intelligence in our everyday lives and in the workplace?
Klaus Mainzer: When we think of the automotive industry, we picture freely moving robotic arms. These are already a first step toward artificial intelligence. They execute predefined programs and assist people in their work. What we’re seeing now is that robots are increasingly becoming attentive partners. At Audi in Ingolstadt, you can see a robot that relieves its human colleagues of the task of lifting heavy components. It waits for a part to arrive on the conveyor belt and hands it over to the employee. The next step will lead to learning systems. They are given a goal. Using reward systems, they then independently find the optimal path. We’re familiar with this principle of reinforcement learning from psychology. That’s one aspect. When we think specifically about artificial intelligence, however, in addition to robotic arms, autonomous vehicles and factory floors also come to mind—as do Industry 4.0 and the Internet of Things. There are now 14 billion devices connected to one another. That number will double by the end of the decade. As it grows, so does the potential for artificial intelligence.
On a timeline—from the programmed robotic arm to the autonomously operating machine—where do we stand?
We’re currently witnessing the rise of sensor technology. The robotic arm mentioned in Ingolstadt is no longer a prototype. Through a former student, I’ve established contact with the robot manufacturer Kuka near Munich. There, they’re now taking the robot out of its cage. For a long time, these developments depended on the automotive industry. Now they’re also taking hold in production across other sectors. This trend will accelerate in Germany. The buzzword is Industry 4.0. Germany’s industrial heritage is a competitive advantage. Now we must combine it with information technology. The world’s major IT companies are now taking over the industrial sector and becoming manufacturers themselves—think of the cars from Google and Tesla. If we aren’t careful and fail to integrate artificial intelligence with our industry here, we’ll become mere suppliers
A smart factory can better meet customer needs. Does this mean that the individual customer must now be matched with the flexible employee? After 100 years, employers are even reopening the debate on the 8-hour workday.
The flexibilization of working hours is a consequence of the smart factory. On-demand production requires flexible employees. Machines and people will organize their own working hours. The Frederick Taylor-style theory of work, which had supervisors roaming the factory floors with stopwatches, is over. Today, companies are interested in work results, not employee presence. However, this must be preceded by appropriate training. In the future, we’ll need to think more carefully about what we teach our employees. Teaching someone how to use a computer program that will no longer be in use by the time they finish their training leads nowhere. We need to focus more on competencies and foster the ability to learn
What does this shift toward flexibility mean in concrete terms?
Norbert Wiener’s warning—that humans will become slaves if they compete with machines—is nearly half a century old. This stands in contrast to the promises of freedom made by the manufacturers of the new systems. How broadly must we frame the discussion today to be able to talk about highly qualified skilled workers and on-demand clickworkers? This criticism and this question must be taken very seriously. But first, I ask: Where was enslavement more pronounced? In the Henry Ford-era world of Taylorism we discussed, or today? It’s not new that machines set the pace. What is new, however, are the opportunities presented by increased flexibility. These depend on the degree of automation and the level of training among employees. In fact, we must take a very nuanced look at what is happening in each individual segment. A full-time employee at Audi works differently than a clickworker or crowdworker who performs tasks on demand. However, it cannot be said that industry will rely solely on a crowd in the future. In the envisioned Industry 4.0, this would not even be possible. The concept calls for highly qualified employees who offer companies the security of knowing they can rely on them.
There is a completely different aspect that is crucial—and will also be of interest to employers and unions in the future: To keep pace with accelerating innovation cycles, we will need phases in which employees are temporarily removed from direct production to prepare them for the next stages of development.
There has long been much talk about lifelong learning. It can hardly be put off any longer. The implementation of Industry 4.0 depends on how successfully such educational concepts are implemented. This form of sustainability is already being addressed in the dual vocational training system. This should be further developed. Overall, it is about a counter-concept to the “clickworker” model. That model will only appear in certain segments of the workforce. However, it is by no means capable of realizing ambitious concepts from business and politics, such as Industry 4.0.
How far does the current state of affairs fall short of these requirements? Christiane Benner, vice chair of IG Metall, already pointed out at the recent Engineering and IT Conference that new educational concepts and forms of workplace co-determination are being neglected when looking to the near future.
That is the key question. We can come up with many ideas in politics and academia, in organizations and companies. However, if we do not have well-trained employees who are involved in the development process, then automation will hit a wall. It will remain nothing more than a pipe dream. It is illusory to believe that, overnight, we will have automated factories where a handful of “super-engineers” sit in a control room and oversee machines operating autonomously. We will need well-trained engineers, skilled workers, computer scientists, technicians, and many other employees at every level.
Looking at industry, we in Germany have another decisive locational advantage: our vocational training system. We are not global leaders because of our universities, but because of our apprenticeship and master craftsman training programs. That is the guarantee behind “Made in Germany”—we must recognize this clearly. As we prepare for Industry 4.0, I am thinking in particular of dual education in schools and in the workplace. “Learning by doing” resonates much more deeply with young people. Some criticize an obsession with academic degrees. I, too, believe the idea that a university degree is the key to saving the world is misguided. We need to rethink how our society values different types of degrees. We must speak more honestly about the competitive advantage of vocational training. The success of Industry 4.0 initiatives depends on it.
This appeal is not directed solely at businesses.
It is directed above all at policymakers, particularly those responsible for education policy. Universities are at the top of the hierarchy today. But we need to think more broadly, about practical application. Take me, for example—I studied physics. So I know Maxwell’s equations and feel confident tackling some theoretical problems. But if a wire needs to be repaired in my house, I call a master electrician. He knows how to solve the problem. If we don’t start focusing more on vocational training again, I would call that a misguided development. Look at China today. For a long time, they’ve been looking up to us, and soon they’ll reach a level of qualification that will make Industry 4.0 a reality.
At the engineering and IT conference, you’ll be speaking about the human-machine relationship. Can you give us a brief insight?
Actually, the term “machine” bothers me a bit. After all, we’re not talking today about the oil-smeared, rattling contraptions of the 19th century. Instead, we’re talking about Industry 4.0—and when I speak about it, I’m thinking of infrastructures and systems. Today, people interact with more or less automated systems, whether it’s the transportation network we use or the smart grid that supplies us with energy. That is the immediate future, and that’s what our expertise must focus on. We are embedded in these intelligent infrastructures. If we want to develop them, we need the technical expertise of engineers and computer scientists, as well as the social understanding of psychologists, sociologists, and lawyers. Ideally, everyone understands each other’s language. Development can only succeed through an interdisciplinary approach—I like to refer to this as the “systems engineer.”
At the engineering and IT conference, you’ll be speaking about the human-machine relationship. Can you give us a brief preview?
Actually, the term “machine” bothers me a bit. After all, we’re not talking today about the oil-smeared, rattling contraptions of the 19th century. Instead, we’re talking about Industry 4.0—and when I say that, I’m thinking of infrastructures and systems. Today, people interact with more or less automated systems, whether it’s the transportation network we use or the smart grid that supplies us with energy. That is the immediate future, and that’s what our expertise must focus on. We are embedded in these intelligent infrastructures. If we want to develop them, we need the technical expertise of engineers and computer scientists, as well as the social understanding of psychologists, sociologists, and lawyers. Ideally, everyone understands each other’s language. Development can only succeed through an interdisciplinary approach—I like to refer to this as the “systems engineer.”
So the buzzword for the near future is “integration”?
Yes, it’s my favorite word. “Interdisciplinary” is an academic and university-based concept. It assumes separate disciplines that now work together. But “integration” means more than that. Ultimately, it’s about integrating these systems into society. It won’t succeed if people don’t accept them.
