Day 1/28: AI is around the corner. Let’s not repeat mistakes from the past.
Recently, researchers from Oxford University published a document ranking by probabilities the jobs most likely to be computerized in the next decade. In the list we find well-educated lawyers, journalists, bureaucrats, and corporate managers. Many belong to white-collar functions. AI is increasingly gaining a foothold in disciplines once seen to be only doable by humans: translating languages, grading essays, composing music, writing news articles, identifying legal precedents, and conducting financial analysis.
Business Insider speaks of a possible white-collar rebellion. Marx argued that government is co-opted by the wealthy class. At the time of the Industrial Revolution, mass unemployment led to the Luddites worker revolution, but it was not so effective because they were not well organized. From Marx’s view on society, it could be thought that a white-collar rebellion would be much more effective because of stronger ties with government.
Elon Musk, speaks of AI as the ‘biggest existential threat’, Bill Gates says it is a self-evident crisis and does not ‘understand why some people are not concerned’, and futurist Ray Kurzweil expects that, by 2045, computer intelligence will match or exceed human abilities in every way — what he calls “singularity.” There is the argument that white-collar rebellion could shift the dynamics of power and put at fault the problems of a politico-economic system that concentrates wealth, increases inequalities, and protects corporations from public accountability. The economic benefits derived from AI will go to the few who own the technology, while the harm will fall on the rest of us. The view is that technology amplifies the inequities of capitalism. To better understand the implications of this news on societal inequalities, I will try to explain the news via the works of Professor Stiglitz, Francis Fukuyama and Dani Rodrik.
AI’s likelihood to increase inequalities
Professor Stiglitz, in his Ted Talk on the Costs of Inequality, speaks of rank seekers, those that understand the system most, and hence are at a greater advantage in society. In this specific case, the rank seekers will be those that understand Artificial Intelligence, and more importantly, understand how AI will shape the workplace of tomorrow. Why will AI increase inequalities? Because those that own the AI are those that will generate the most economic benefits. The current owners of big data and ones investing into AI machines, for example Facebook, Google, Amazon, are in that case those at an advantage. Their percentage of gains is likely to be even higher. Stiglitz speaks of 1000% of all gains gone to the rich- that number is likely to increase with the ownership of AIs.
Francis Fukuyama’s analysis of the situation is that “highly unequal countries are polarized between rich and poor” (Fukuyama, 2011) — and even more so if nothing is done with respect to AI and economic benefits derived from such a source. The distribution of benefits will be an area to explore when doing damage control to a booming industry benefitting only to the very few. One portion, the owners, will see exponential increases in benefits; while the other portion of society will, as they lose their jobs to computerization, see theirs decrease- furthering the inequality gap between the 1% and the other 99%.
On a global scale, those countries that are most advanced in developing the technology will be better off, and I believe global economic disparities will intensify. In Stiglitz’s view, he would speak of AI as “not only being a moral issue, but also a political issue” (Stiglitz, 2013), as I’ll discuss in more depth next.
The meaning of a White-Collar Rebellion
Francis Fukuyama is of the belief that “inequality undermines or is dangerous to democracy” (Fukuyama, 2011). With the case of AI, this statement seems valid. There could be ‘democratic danger’ with mass unemployment, and worker and white-collar rebellions. White-collars, whom did not experience the loss of jobs in the Industrial Revolution, this time are very likely to be in the streets expressing their anger. Democracy will likely be at risk, but maybe this time for the better.
White-collars have long had strong ties with government, so you can expect that government under circumstances of white-collar rebellion, will feel under pressure. It may be a severe warning of action for government to act upon a currently failing politico-economic system which as Stiglitz argues only benefits the very few as opposed to the overall of society. A shift in focus and speed will be of essence for government to limit the damage of AI; if not handled-well, it could do to democracy and society a whole lot of damage.
Lessons learnt and mistakes not to repeat
On a global scale there is a message of warning in Professor Stiglitz’s article, when he speaks of globalization and what it means for world inequalities. He iterates that “the problem is thus not with globalization, but with how it has been managed” (Stiglitz, 2002). In his explanation of bad management, he blames countries like the US for discussing unfair trade agendas, with a disproportionate part of gains accrued to the advanced industrial countries.
Countries around the globe will adopt AI at different speeds. Advanced countries are likely to adopt AI much faster than underdeveloped countries. From lessons learnt, it would be unfair for countries adopting AI first to force rules upon the less privileged countries. They should stand as advisors, but not as commanders. If they command, it is likely the same mistakes as with globalization will happen and global inequalities between countries will grow wider. Dani Rodrik agrees with Stiglitz on the point of unfair trade agreements. He urges that “leaders of the advanced countries will have to stop dressing up policies championed by special interests at home as responses to the needs of the poor in the developing world” (Rodrik, 2002). With globalization, he defended that: “global markets are good for poor countries but the rules by which they have to play are not.” and with AI across the corner- it is a message to be learnt and not to be repeated.
AI is no longer science fiction; it is a reality.
How we manage and deal with it, will determine the outcomes of global societies. Let’s not repeat mistakes from the past.
Thanks for reading. I’m new to Medium, would love some feedback. I’ll be back…stay tuned.
