{"text":[[{"start":5.85,"text":"Probably. We can’t all be high value and even if we think we are now, there’s an AI model coming soon to seriously diminish our worth. And if there isn’t, there’s still a human being willing to bet on the day when it does."}],[{"start":19.7,"text":"Evidence of this comes via the seriously high-value Bill Winters, chief executive of Standard Chartered bank, who gifted the phrase “lower-value human capital” (LVHC) to public discourse as he explained how AI would allow the replacement of back-office jobs “with the financial capital and the investment capital that we’re putting in”. "}],[{"start":40.099999999999994,"text":"At one level this is merely a statement of the obvious, but describing people as “lower-value human capital” did seem perhaps a touch insensitive, or, as a former boss put it, “inartful”. But perhaps it was just the kind of deracinated corporate and finance gibberish you get when you get used to describing people as human resources."}],[{"start":59.449999999999996,"text":"Winters himself is so high value that his remuneration once sparked a major shareholder revolt. His defenders will tell you he is an exceptional banker. This is a man who got very close to the top of JPMorgan and has run StanChart for a decade. He survived the crash and thrived. "}],[{"start":74.85,"text":"It would be unfair to infer a whiff of eugenics from Winters’ terminology. He’s not a tech-plutocrat, just a miserable multi-millionaire. More likely is that he thought such convoluted impersonal language is somehow better than words like “staff”, “old jobs” or even “redundancies”."}],[{"start":93.85,"text":"He was soon acquainted with his mistake. We know this because he has taken to LinkedIn twice to explain himself. His defence is that StanChart will be offering “every opportunity to reposition”, so it is not simply chucking everyone on the LVHC scrapheap — even if, in many cases, it is. He’s not really making a judgment about their worth as humans — as parents, partners or friends — just their value as employees. They could be high value in every respect apart from the one that matters to StanChart. "}],[{"start":124.8,"text":"Ultimately, his real crime is articulating a little too clearly how the very top brass will be approaching the AI shakeout. And anyone who has worked at an investment bank knows they are only one bad quarter away from finding a cardboard box on their desk. "}],[{"start":140.2,"text":"But it poses a question for all of us: “Could I be lower-value human capital?” If not today, then tomorrow. And if so, how do I raise the value of my human stock? Clearly, reskilling, sucking up to the boss or marrying a nepo baby could all help. Alternatively you could retrain as a hairdresser, but once robotics catches up with AI, even that may be less secure. "}],[{"start":165.29999999999998,"text":"Still, there are certain things you can do. Learn from Bill. When speaking in meetings, get long-winded. Start saying things like “we need to leverage a holistic, macro, cross-foundational framework”. Nothing says high-value human to those making these calls more than confident incomprehensibility. Also start adopting the phrase “lower-value human capital”, since its use denotes you cannot possibly be in that cohort yourself."}],[{"start":191.49999999999997,"text":"Do not despair. You may suspect you are low value, but every organisation needs someone who can work the printer, because you can be damn sure none of the high-value humans can. They also need someone who can ban phones from the Christmas party. In any case, the high-value skills of the future may well be personal human ones."}],[{"start":210.89999999999998,"text":"And at some point the high-value humans will remember you need infantry as well as generals, not least because generals really prefer it when other people charge the guns."}],[{"start":221.95,"text":"For a true picture though, I sought advice from the AI models. ChatGPT gave a resounding, life-affirming “no” to the question, but only because human capital “is not fixed” and we can all become better versions of ourselves. Claude was more empathetic, observing that human capital might work as an economic term but “it’s a pretty poor framework for evaluating you as a person. It’s like judging a painting by how much wall space it covers.” "}],[{"start":247.5,"text":"Google’s Gemini could not be clearer: “No, you are a human being with inherent worth. Not a line item on a corporate balance sheet.” "}],[{"start":256.4,"text":"I’m not sure this really counts as an answer, but all three AI models showed more empathy, humanity and, frankly, PR skills than the “inartful” Bill. I hope he’s not worried that AI seems better equipped for the public-facing aspects of his job. We’d all hate to see his value plummet. "}],[{"start":272.79999999999995,"text":"Find out about our latest stories first — follow FT Weekend Magazine on X and FT Weekend on Instagram"}],[{"start":286.74999999999994,"text":""}]],"url":"https://audio.ftcn.net.cn/album/a_1780149894_4983.mp3"}