Can we steer the technology is an interesting idea that I accidentally stumbled upon. I was not aware of this aspect of technology. I was doing mandatory peripheral reading of Nobel prize in Economics. Peripheral since I am not too keen on economics ((unlike Physics – quite fascinated about this field since Star Trek and Cosmos, as also Medicine -the only adult book available at home during childhood was Materia Medica that I used to flip through regularly, also gutting insects and studying their entrails. Literature, since I too dabbled in it and realize how difficult it is to express in words (i am reading Han Kang's Human Act -the state brutality is searingly counterbalanced with whispering absences of victims. Amazing creative control) as also new ideas and thoughts through nonfiction and subtleties of poetry so on, though I don’t find some of the choices interesting but mostly they are tremendous and fascinating and I make it a point to read them)) but mandatory as I am inquisitive to know about their contribution. It could be interesting and sometimes new insights that one can relate to. Offhand I recall being introduced to fresh take on ‘tragedy of commons’ (Elinor Ostrom -whom I happen to listen in person at ATREE Bangalore), nudge (Richard Thaler), satisficing (Herbert Simon), asymmetry of information (Stiglitz). While some economists as writers of really interesting books like Gunnar Myrdal, Daniel Kahneman, and to lesser extent regrettable Amartya Sen.
So here I was cursorily going through and very soon latched on to really fascinating, indeed exceedingly relevant, in context to AI. I was watching talks by Daron Acemoglu (as also James Robinson -a well-travelled researcher with lots of insights from different regions of the world, the extractive and inclusive institutions playing role in failure and success of societies) and was riveted to progress of technology from a new perspective. Technology leads to efficiency which increases productivity and benefits percolating to workers. With decades of studies and some insightful examples they argue that although productivity increased it didn’t really benefit the workers (windmills converted peasants into forced laborers, cotton gin made enslaved black people’s life harsher etc). While ‘productivity bandwagon’ (progress hinged on technology) increased wages over the decades it also accentuated disparities instead of ‘shared prosperity’. Workers weren’t getting the share of productivity gains. The result of shift towards centralizing profit (they don’t mention it but we all know the Reagan era consolidation of neoliberal hubris that eventually ensnared the world). Adam Smith’s free market as benign means to a decent society was weaponized into neoliberal free market gargantuan greed. “Social responsibility of business is to increase its profit”, pontificated Milton Freedman, and so workers were dispensable commodity and indeed seen as hindrance for profit maximization. With state aiding and siding with neoliberal forces labour unions lost their power and relevance, were viciously dealt and outlawed by corporates. Invisible hand morphed into clenched fist that threaten against any role of the state. With that they controlled the narration of capitalism as insatiable predatory market. Much of what is being pushed aside, and violently so in recent times, as socialism is infact the core of Adam smith’s conception of capitalism. State has a crucial role to regulate, ensure justice and provide essential services. Regulatory role of state is becoming critical as neoliberal controlled unfettered market greed has vandalized societies, alienated individuals, and destroyed nature.
Automation replaces worker with efficient reliable technology as has happened in most of manufacturing processes, also there is significant difference between automated tool and AI tool -that works on realtime feedback learning loop. Very soon private public interface will be AI automated. State may refuse to use the technology but you cannot prevent private players. Take the example of ubiquitous humanless ATM, when was the last time you went to crowded bank and wasted time and resources to fill up a form to collect money? Ofcourse this is a benign example that is decades old. World has changed much with AI in the last few years, AI automated interface is inevitable and has already begun with payment through smart phone so on as it consolidates towards multimodal interface. If humanless learning of AlphaZero can revolutionize chess imagine the possibilities. You cannot prevent AI taking jobs of, say, a Radiologists as it is efficient. Radiologist will have much reduced job of complementing AI (possibly overseeing since human lives are concerned, possibilities of hallucination) hence more time for meaningful upgradation. You can unionize for your rights but you cannot prevent AI automation. You may call it techno-determinism but it is using available means for increasing efficiency, or simply not wanting to deal with messy humans who can easily be replaced. How will you prevent this choice? Organisation have right to save money and streamline process, it is a logical option and not as tyrant as maximizing profit at the expense of environment or public health. It is not violating any rights nor is it taking away jobs that is essentially meaningful that needs human ingenuity. Is the humanity ready to strip the layers of hubris and face the existential meaning or do we need more psychiatrists and police force?
Human being is not a resource to be utilized, nor are they cheap labour to create market advantage. Human beings are individuals. Anything that evaluate less than this reality is dehumanizing, whatever maybe the construct or intention. The flaw in the argument is in constructing solution that evaluates human being as economic entity. An entity that needs to be a cog to find meaning in life or is enthusiastic to be labour in a meaningless occupation. A social animal dictated and motivated by social matrix of status and power. These conceptions of primitive societies cannot be defining characteristics of human in modern world. Human must be dealt in entire possibility of his or her being. AI is asking us to reevaluate definitions we have taken for granted. What is the meaning of job? The economic definition of job/work/task (or what they refer around here: "duty" -which I found especially obnoxious) falls short of fulfilling the requirements of humans as individuals. Artificial intelligence is taking away artificial jobs, jobs that are constructed to be kept occupied in an alienating circumstances and dehumanizing value systems. The semantics of economy cannot really contain the reality of being a human. Words will therefore have to find the approximate meaning of this fast changing reality. Words like development, progress, growth so on will have to contain the entirety of human experience and aspiration. Words need to mean what it was really conceived to mean and expand into newer approximation of better possibilities and not appropriated by powerful controllers to reduce the experience and create narrations to perpetuate extractive systems.
Unlike past, where speed and impact of technology was limited, who controls AI is important since its power is far reaching and possibly cataclysmic if not effectively regulated. Such powerful technology cannot be decided by neoliberal narration nor estimated through economic pointers. What direction the AI innovation takes will be influenced by institutions and ecosystems as also rogue states. You cannot control the direction of technology, it will innovate for the opportunistic needs and immediate benefits. Powerful forces will try to dictate but at the end of the day it will have to be used by people or used on people, for traction of profit or control, or else it loses significance. So there is inevitability of technology once it is invented and the potential for use is identified. Nuclear technology went in for all possibilities from benign to sinister eventhough it was monopolized by state unlike AI -many corporate use billion-dollar GPU run Foundational models that provide platform for all kinds of applications. Authoritarian countries like China is using full force of state machinery to seek tech dominance through AI, Quantum and Genetic engineering by whatever means (authoritarian ecosystem doesn't nurture innovation, it just copies. Interestingly ancient China was way ahead in innovation that the state found threatening its stability and order. Song dynasty pushed inwardness and order over free thinking taking China into darkness, the communist dug it further. Great wall of China is a metaphor of Chinese insularity and downgrading). Neoliberal ecosystems and authoritarian states will bring worst out of technology that really doesn’t mean it can be banned. Technology once it finds traction cannot be banned. Institutions must be modified to create ecosystem of egalitarian needs and universal benefits of AI. State must effectively take up the role of regulator with awareness of changing context and technological innovations. Human rights, privacy concerns -liberty, creative control -freedom, data access -equality, so on are potent delimitating and effective tools to streamline AI and align to ethics. Catastrophic possibilities of AI must be strictly regulated with international treaty like for instance the threat of AI automated weapons -the superior inaccessible reasoning makes it extremely tricky to control. Progress of technology is inevitable you cannot ban it; you can regulate it and streamline to international treaties and rule of law.
There is a compelling argument on redirecting technology. A call against blind tech-optimism, as also urgent need to include diverse voices in the debate than confined it to narrow field of tech experts since technology has societal, economical and political implications, and I may add cultural implication too (also some of these Tech heads are clearly showing signs of megalomania, essentially nutcases with enormous power). Ofcourse caution and vigilance is needed against exaggerated claims. It must be understood that humanity’s progress is very much hinged on technological progress. Technology is exposing people to various experiences, ideas, cultures and thinking, and with proper regulation against fake, misinformation and disinformation as also vigilance against corporate recommender algorithm of attention greed into dark regions can be curtailed. It cannot be denied that social media did increase transparency and consolidated democratization of society (fiercely disagree with Acemoglu on this, BigTech mischief like Cambridge Analytica can be dealt with effective regulation and data privacy) by severely undermining legacy institutions and empowering common people by providing them a tool to resist, connect and express. There are two issues here. One, converting these voices and embedding into progressive institutions is a weak link. We saw how Occupy Wall Street movement and Tahrir square protests orchestrated through social media fizzling out, indeed backfired in later case. It was not failure of technology but lack of vibrancy in the institutions that were controlled by feudal regressive interests. Second, fast spreading technology and techno optimism led to slackness in regulations hence neoliberal nurtured corporate undermined democratic institutions and individual privacy.
Social mobilization and government policy initiatives to shift from fossil fuel technology to renewable energy technology is quite successful model to emulate. International treaties, subsidies, regulations and pressure from civil society can play progressive role in directing technology. But it is not really changing direction of technology and surely is not applicable to AI nor can AI be redirected -it can be regulated through transparency of foundational model data so on but then what with synthetic data -what pattern it is iterating in the loop? Technology will find as many paths as there are possibilities and what aspect of technology is nurtured too depends on myriad factors. Shifting technology from fossil fuel to sustainable is based on scientific consensus of irretrievable damage on climate. Also, it is shifting of alternative -they are meant to perform same task. Indeed the shift is slow due to slack efficiency in progress of sustainable -especially battery technology, energy density so on -ofcourse things are changing fast. There is no parallel nor alternative to AI. It is a genie that is out of the box, and all possible alternative will be explored for monetization, for control, for superiority. It will expose humanity in every possible way.
AI is not ‘new technology’, as in incremental addition to the past, this is a paradigm shifting technology hence cannot be fitted and streamlined into past narrations and extrapolated. There are exaggerations in AI but there isn’t any doubt that this is paradigm shifting at two levels. One, in the very idea and scope of technology. AI automation is not staid instruction based fixed mechanized tool but a dynamic, thinking (within the narrow framework), partner in the task with ambiguous evolving goals. This artificial intelligence, in limited frame of assigned task, is much superior to human in its assimilation and reasoning. It’s a breathtaking leap and must be acknowledged in all its gravity. Second, AI automation raises the important question of the very definition of work. These two compelling reasons makes it disconnect from past. So the claim that this is just an extension of continuing struggle between ‘technology and prosperity’ for thousands of years is profoundly troubling estimation. Implication on society maybe tenuously similar but nor the technology nor the seismic shift in understanding of job/work is same as also human evolve in modern understandings exposed to contemporary humanistic concerns and awareness. Ossified ideas of role of human and what keeps him or her occupied miss the holistic aspects of what modernity presents and how humanity has evolved in globalized world. We need to even question regressive system appropriated semantics -understanding of words like prosperity and its exaggerated influence on society. Wellbeing is a comprehensive understanding (ofcourse Kahneman places it on memory!) and to hinge it on jobs and status is a regressive valuation of society and fixed motivational frame assigned to humans. Herd need to be kept occupied or else they slip into dire is the patronizing reasoning that emerge from feudal extractive ecosystem. Humans are free souls and they will find their reasons if systems and institutions are sensitive to seek their potential as unique individuals. It is elitist to assume workers will find meaning in meaningless jobs. This may threaten the status quo of control hence these elaborate ruse.
There is a realistic evaluation of something really profound in this technological leap. How humanity utilizes these depends on the ecosystems on which it is nurtured and regulated so as to contain the threat to humanity. The ecosystem that enhances human capacity through technology is a way forward. Meanwhile it needs to be kept in mind superior technology cannot be undermined for the need of human employment, it can only synergize, and AI presents unique unprecedented challenges that has no parallel. AI challenges us to redefine society so as to enhance egalitarian values so that technology synergize into development. It asks us to rethink ideas of job, how we spent our time and what we value. AI presents mirror on humanity and asks uncomfortable question on what it is to be human. Buried in institutions (which helped us to evolve from extractive to inclusive), jargons, and much hubris of centuries, it is time to extricate and evaluate the human. Surely neoliberal capitalism is woefully incapable to undertake this responsibility, nor will it be allowed to usurp these concerns into its fold and vitiate crucial issue with meaningless jargons and word play to please the status quo. Trapped, as it is, in ossified institutions and meanings entombed to an age which has no similarities to the contemporary. History creates awareness, ofcourse limited to the context of time and space, to extrapolate that into present is to miss the complexity of history and evolved reality of contemporary. It is to trap human into lowest estimation as herd. History is not about knowing but understanding. Understanding the limitations.
Institutions are subjective construct that helped to stabilize societies and surely cannot reckon existential realities. AI is the Prometheus humans have conceived to think deeper into nature of things. AI is a promethean technology liberation for humanity and a challenge to powerful narrations. To work is to be a creator, an artisan. Job is chiseling of skill to represent one’s unique presence and voice of diversity in a synchrony of humanity. Clearly economist’s estimation of human is limited so is their assumption of safety nets like UBI and understanding of human motivation. ‘Shared prosperity’ needs to update with contemporary reality. Patriarchal egoistic valuation of work as meaningless hardwork (referencing physical machoism relic of hunter gatherer mismatch) compensation as ‘breadwinner for the family’ doesn’t fit into contemporary society. There are meaningful ways to spent precious time nor is there any need to be bothered about fragile male ego defining jobs that economists have taken seriously -essentially to prevent the collapse of crucial façade of outdated theories and complacency to factor in changed reality. Shared prosperity means sharing the prosperity. UBI and safety nets are very much concerns of justice within the ambit of Adam Smith conception before these were vandalized by Reagan-Thatcher plot. Socialist concerns of capitalism therefore must be retrieved from neoliberal degradation of capitalism. When the idea and definition of growth is questioned then neoliberal degrowth is possible. What is not inevitable is destructive march of neoliberal capitalism. It is not the direction of technology that matters -as pointed out it cannot be controlled but regulated, it the ecosystem that nurture these that matters. Hence extractive crony capitalistic neoliberal ecosystem and authoritarian regime will produce worst possibilities of technology. So the attention need to be on the ecosystem (egalitarian institution, democratic ideals, socialist capitalist state as dispenser of crucial services and infrastructure of equity and freedom, value education so on) and not on technology. State has crucial role in “sharing prosperity” through safety nets and subsidized services. State has a vital responsibility in the AI augmented inevitable world. Neoliberal value system cannot be allowed to undermine state, democratic institutions and principles.
You cannot assume Sisyphus to be happy. You have to nurture systems and institutions evolved to the contemporary reality and semantics that approximates the dynamic. Prometheus will have to share the burden of existential absurdity.
