Thank you for another interesting article on AI. The power of technology has far outstripped the 'ethical maturity' and 'co-operative capability' to handle such power wisely. I taught business, professional & engineering ethics in the 1990s - and if one substituted the word 'computer' for 'AI' in your article, I have to say it would read a bit like deja-vu.
The capitalist system (now in its ultra-stage) takes little account of ethics committees, and any forms of 'Technology Assessment'. The intriguing potential of AI is 1,000 more intriguing than was E=mc2 in the 1940s (first off the production-line being a bomb). That's why I quit teaching 'bolt-on ethics'. 25 years on the power of Big-Tech has multiplied many times.
The two questions at the end of your post ("What kind of world do we want to create with this technology? How can we ensure it uplifts rather than divides?) are as relevant as ever, of course, as they were in the 1970s, and as they were in various technology-leaps prior to that. What the history of technology shows me is that, (a).taking technology as a form of power, its power acrues to those already in power; and (b).those already in power are used to using power with a command-and-control (anthropomorphic) mindset, - and regarding AI, the future looks (politically) bleak. I wish it were otherwise.
Thank you Joshua. You are right, we have always sought to embed ethics into teaching and corporations. O often use the case of David Marr, the 'what and why'. Your big points on power, are the crux of all of this and where AI technoleaders are taking us. There needs to be some form of consensus. Of course, maybe I am looking with extreme optimism - because political leaders let us down, time and time again. Would a Cern type institute serve humanity better? AGI will most likely cure diseases and help us fix some of man made problems. But of course the capital flows to shareholders and wealth will be vastly unequal, as it is now. Maybe, we will have less cross border trade as AI may help countries to become self-sufficient - but then what has always happened is wars due to others wanting what another country has. Some how we need to fin a way - and unlike never before we have a larger world community able to converse and take collective action - could it be possible that this time we can make a difference? (These questions/points that you make should be high on all of our agendas - What the history of technology shows me is that, (a).taking technology as a form of power, its power acrues to those already in power; and (b).those already in power are used to using power with a command-and-control (anthropomorphic) mindset, - and regarding AI, the future looks (politically) bleak. I wish it were otherwise.)
Thank you for the reply, Colin. As an engineer, I always saw my role as being to bring socially useful products to the market. Being born in the 1950s, with the shadow and sacrifices of two world wars hanging over the family tree, I had always assumed "we all rise together to build a better world".
The Reagan/Thatcher 1980s changed all that to "every man for himself". This came as something of a shock to us engineers (and us members of the The Society for Philosophy and Technology) as we realised the idea of 'controlling technology' for the greater good of all was going to drown under deregulated Capitalism coupled with very fast-paced innovation and computerisation. 40 years on the pace and power of technology has massively accelerated.
I don't have an answer. Personally I have 'retreated from the U.K to rural Portugal to live more simply, grow more food, and support the growth of resilient local communities. But for the majority this is probably not an option.
I believe in a decentralised agrarian society - and maybe AI can make a contribution in this respect - as you suggest ("Maybe, we will have less cross border trade as AI may help countries to become self-sufficient"). I think AI is blowing the future wide open at one level, but existing power-structures are very adept at using everything from language to tech to consolidate their power positions.
Rural Portugal sounds idyllic. I left the UK many years ago, after being Stateside I am now in Poland, we have a rural retreat in teh Polish countryside, but life is mainly in the capital - but the goal is somewhere warmer... and absolutely where we can grow food. It is a joy. But many will not be able to do that. I am rethinking my time frames given what I see in the main tech labs and discuss with friends working there. I was close to the mining villages during the strikes and transition so remember that time well - this time is so different - people generally have no idea!
"I was close to the mining villages during the strikes" ... my first job was working for the NCB (National Coal Board) in the North Manchester pits, and as a teenager I voted in the Feb'74 Miners strike that brought the Heath government down. When Thatcher got in I could see the writing on the wall so I had left before the 1984/5 strike.
"Rural Portugal sounds idyllic" - we chose central Portugal (Beiras region) because of the balance of rain & sun. Food growing and local markets are the norm here, thankfully. Younger Portuguese are now returning to family quintas, having 'tried out' city life; 30% of young Portuguese leave the country to work elsewhere - a lot in Switzerland & Germany.
It's certainly an uncertain time, and for me 'security' is a bit of land to grow food, a good roof over your head, your own water supply, and community.
A lot of Polish people bought in Portugal when the Ukraine broke out - it is still a desired place for second home. We considered it, but it is likely we will settle on Garda - we will see!
This is where we need to act, I believe, because if we don't, we are putting our futures in the hands of people who genuinely do not want there to be one for us as human beings.
AI is potentially the most transformational GPT, or general purpose technology, to emerge in our lifetimes.
On the one hand, it seems foolish to assume that we could ever control or align something smarter than we are (we cannot even align our fellow humans much of the time).
But the risk of overregulation, or failing to embrace the opportunities that AI provides, is simply too great.
The goal, of course, is for AI to be the “last” invention that we ever have to make alone.
Very nicely put. It is encouraging that the EU AI act is quite light with GPTs. In the short term we will see disruption, sadly, but overall we will have a massive upside. I was just re-reading Power and Progress by Acemoglu and Johnson. They seek to show that we should seek to ensure maximum upside for everyone... financially this will be critical. I think everything else will fall into place.
I read that a few months back! I never quite understood their explanation as to why some automation creates jobs with others do not. If you understood that, maybe you can explain it to me :)
So far, technology has generally created jobs though with slumps, like after the Industrial Revolution. However, we're not seeing job replacement after AI. I assume that you've read the Harvard Business Report on this already?
I'd say that the risks of human extinction is significant enough that we need to monitor for loss of control. If we don't pay attention, it would be our Last Invention indeed.
Thank you for another interesting article on AI. The power of technology has far outstripped the 'ethical maturity' and 'co-operative capability' to handle such power wisely. I taught business, professional & engineering ethics in the 1990s - and if one substituted the word 'computer' for 'AI' in your article, I have to say it would read a bit like deja-vu.
The capitalist system (now in its ultra-stage) takes little account of ethics committees, and any forms of 'Technology Assessment'. The intriguing potential of AI is 1,000 more intriguing than was E=mc2 in the 1940s (first off the production-line being a bomb). That's why I quit teaching 'bolt-on ethics'. 25 years on the power of Big-Tech has multiplied many times.
The two questions at the end of your post ("What kind of world do we want to create with this technology? How can we ensure it uplifts rather than divides?) are as relevant as ever, of course, as they were in the 1970s, and as they were in various technology-leaps prior to that. What the history of technology shows me is that, (a).taking technology as a form of power, its power acrues to those already in power; and (b).those already in power are used to using power with a command-and-control (anthropomorphic) mindset, - and regarding AI, the future looks (politically) bleak. I wish it were otherwise.
Thank you Joshua. You are right, we have always sought to embed ethics into teaching and corporations. O often use the case of David Marr, the 'what and why'. Your big points on power, are the crux of all of this and where AI technoleaders are taking us. There needs to be some form of consensus. Of course, maybe I am looking with extreme optimism - because political leaders let us down, time and time again. Would a Cern type institute serve humanity better? AGI will most likely cure diseases and help us fix some of man made problems. But of course the capital flows to shareholders and wealth will be vastly unequal, as it is now. Maybe, we will have less cross border trade as AI may help countries to become self-sufficient - but then what has always happened is wars due to others wanting what another country has. Some how we need to fin a way - and unlike never before we have a larger world community able to converse and take collective action - could it be possible that this time we can make a difference? (These questions/points that you make should be high on all of our agendas - What the history of technology shows me is that, (a).taking technology as a form of power, its power acrues to those already in power; and (b).those already in power are used to using power with a command-and-control (anthropomorphic) mindset, - and regarding AI, the future looks (politically) bleak. I wish it were otherwise.)
Thank you for the reply, Colin. As an engineer, I always saw my role as being to bring socially useful products to the market. Being born in the 1950s, with the shadow and sacrifices of two world wars hanging over the family tree, I had always assumed "we all rise together to build a better world".
The Reagan/Thatcher 1980s changed all that to "every man for himself". This came as something of a shock to us engineers (and us members of the The Society for Philosophy and Technology) as we realised the idea of 'controlling technology' for the greater good of all was going to drown under deregulated Capitalism coupled with very fast-paced innovation and computerisation. 40 years on the pace and power of technology has massively accelerated.
I don't have an answer. Personally I have 'retreated from the U.K to rural Portugal to live more simply, grow more food, and support the growth of resilient local communities. But for the majority this is probably not an option.
I believe in a decentralised agrarian society - and maybe AI can make a contribution in this respect - as you suggest ("Maybe, we will have less cross border trade as AI may help countries to become self-sufficient"). I think AI is blowing the future wide open at one level, but existing power-structures are very adept at using everything from language to tech to consolidate their power positions.
Rural Portugal sounds idyllic. I left the UK many years ago, after being Stateside I am now in Poland, we have a rural retreat in teh Polish countryside, but life is mainly in the capital - but the goal is somewhere warmer... and absolutely where we can grow food. It is a joy. But many will not be able to do that. I am rethinking my time frames given what I see in the main tech labs and discuss with friends working there. I was close to the mining villages during the strikes and transition so remember that time well - this time is so different - people generally have no idea!
"I was close to the mining villages during the strikes" ... my first job was working for the NCB (National Coal Board) in the North Manchester pits, and as a teenager I voted in the Feb'74 Miners strike that brought the Heath government down. When Thatcher got in I could see the writing on the wall so I had left before the 1984/5 strike.
"Rural Portugal sounds idyllic" - we chose central Portugal (Beiras region) because of the balance of rain & sun. Food growing and local markets are the norm here, thankfully. Younger Portuguese are now returning to family quintas, having 'tried out' city life; 30% of young Portuguese leave the country to work elsewhere - a lot in Switzerland & Germany.
It's certainly an uncertain time, and for me 'security' is a bit of land to grow food, a good roof over your head, your own water supply, and community.
1984/5 was a good time time to leave the UK.
A lot of Polish people bought in Portugal when the Ukraine broke out - it is still a desired place for second home. We considered it, but it is likely we will settle on Garda - we will see!
If that's Garda as in Lake Garda in Italy - good choice.
This is where we need to act, I believe, because if we don't, we are putting our futures in the hands of people who genuinely do not want there to be one for us as human beings.
AI is potentially the most transformational GPT, or general purpose technology, to emerge in our lifetimes.
On the one hand, it seems foolish to assume that we could ever control or align something smarter than we are (we cannot even align our fellow humans much of the time).
But the risk of overregulation, or failing to embrace the opportunities that AI provides, is simply too great.
The goal, of course, is for AI to be the “last” invention that we ever have to make alone.
Very nicely put. It is encouraging that the EU AI act is quite light with GPTs. In the short term we will see disruption, sadly, but overall we will have a massive upside. I was just re-reading Power and Progress by Acemoglu and Johnson. They seek to show that we should seek to ensure maximum upside for everyone... financially this will be critical. I think everything else will fall into place.
I read that a few months back! I never quite understood their explanation as to why some automation creates jobs with others do not. If you understood that, maybe you can explain it to me :)
That could be a good substack - I'll try in due course:-)
Please do, seriously.
So far, technology has generally created jobs though with slumps, like after the Industrial Revolution. However, we're not seeing job replacement after AI. I assume that you've read the Harvard Business Report on this already?
I was referring specifically to the explanation given in the book, Power and Progress.
I'd say that the risks of human extinction is significant enough that we need to monitor for loss of control. If we don't pay attention, it would be our Last Invention indeed.
Agreed,