AI: a bold new frontier or the end of civilisation?

 In my July briefing for the Jimmy Reid Foundation, I examined the planned growth of AI data centres in Scotland. I didn't have space to develop the section on the merits or otherwise of AI, and many of those opposing AI centres accept that AI is here to stay but oppose hyperscale data centres. As the famous environmental campaigner (and now AI centre opponent) Erin Brockovich says, “That genie is out of the bottle: it’s here, it’s an effective tool, you can use it or not.”

Street art in Tel Aviv (Artem.G, CC BY-SA 4.0)

Personally, I am sceptical that you can separate the two issues. If you accept that AI is here to stay, can you reasonably oppose the means to deliver the benefits? For example, those popular image-generation apps are much more energy-intensive. That is not to downplay the justified concerns of residents facing these massive developments on their doorstep. Concerns that I doubt will be assuaged by the Scottish Government championing 'green' data centres. Some accept that AI cannot be 'put back in the bottle' but argue for greater regulation and hope that technology will provide an answer to the environmental impact, such as faster microchips. This sounds like wishful thinking to me, an argument we heard before over climate change, while the planet is burning. 

The EU has introduced some legislation to regulate AI. The UK does not have any AI-specific legislation. Instead, AI is regulated in the context of its use through existing legal frameworks, such as financial services legislation. It is argued that if democracies limit AI, autocracies like China will win the arms race. I am sure the naval chiefs in the Dreadnought era will be familiar with this argument!

Supporters argue AI can improve efficiency, automate repetitive tasks, solve complex problems, and support advances in healthcare, education, science, and business. It can help people make better decisions by analysing large amounts of data quickly and can perform tasks that are dangerous or difficult for humans. Critics argue that AI may replace some jobs, increase inequality, and pose risks to privacy, security, and the spread of misinformation. There are also concerns that AI systems can make biased decisions, be misused, or operate without enough human control and accountability. Not to mention destroying books!

There is an interesting interview in the latest RSA journal with Cory Doctorow, the technology activist, who argues that the unit economics of AI are really poor. "Every generation of AI is more expensive and money-losing. And they don't have a story about how the economics improve." He warns that when AI crashes, there will be lots of politically angry people, paving the way for authoritarian governments. My immediate thought was that this is just the outcome someone like Palantir's Peter Thiel is planning for. Doctorow argues that the 'regulation will ensure China will win' thesis is simply a cover for the monopolist behaviour we already see in companies like Apple. Stephen Boyd also makes a case for AI regulation in The Herald.

Another perspective on AI comes from a source that few would regard as a liberal leftist. Carson Block is a short seller and the chief executive of Muddy Waters Research in the USA. Writing in The Economist, he argues that in a few years, artificial intelligence will displace a significant portion of the world’s highly paid knowledge workers. These workers will withdraw funds from their investments, ironically causing a big price drop in AI firms. I would also say look out for pension funds that are heavily invested in these firms through increasing passive investment strategies. I had thought that the 'Jevons paradox' would save us (new technology that increases efficiency also increases demand, thereby creating new jobs that offset losses), and scepticism about the slope of the adoption curve. Block says both will be proven wrong, leading to a massive financial crisis. He concludes, "We will witness not just an almighty market correction, but the end of the existing social contract."

Surveys indicate that most Americans, who are at the cutting edge of this change, have a similarly gloomy view. A YouGov poll found that a whopping 45% say they are very or somewhat concerned that AI might cause human extinction. This is driving a rare cross-party political consensus that AI is a problem, not just a driver of growth. However, solutions are in shorter supply. Seventy-nine municipalities in the US have so far issued moratoriums on new data centres. The counterargument is that this backlash is dangerous. AI could power a surge in productivity and incomes, help find cures for untreatable diseases and improve everything else. 

The speculation over AI is justified and interesting, but what is needed is better facts. Investigate the data on energy and water use, as well as job security. Regulate where practicable, building international cooperation where possible, as Yvette Cooper argues this morning. If green data centres are essential, win communities over by making them as 'green' as possible, and offer them a share of the funding. Hopefully, a better system than most renewable generation. While I am not yet convinced that a basic income will work, we should at least be testing ways to share prosperity and tax wealth more effectively. 

And most of all, challenge the inevitability of corporate power by reclaiming collective power to challenge the machine. The Luddites were misunderstood. They rebelled against the way elites were deploying new technology to destroy livelihoods and lower living standards. As should we. 

Automation and the case for government intervention

The robots are coming to take your job - or maybe not quite yet.

As the recent ScotGov/ STUC paper puts it, there are two schools of thought. Those who believe we stand on the cusp of widespread technological unemployment to those who believe the labour market will prove, as it has in the past, much more resilient. It may simply be my age, but I tend to fall into the latter category.

I can recall futurologists telling us that we would all have portfolio careers, yet in practice the amount of time we work for the same employer has actually increased. Yes, automation has resulted in fewer jobs in some sectors, but it has created new ones that we would never have thought of twenty years ago. 

I was pleased to read that my ageing instinct is supported by Danish academic robotic experts who argue that there is still a long way to go before robots will be able to match a number of fundamental human skills. They give five reasons why robots aren’t about to take over the world. These include the abilities of the human hand and manipulation that robots are nowhere to replicating. Humans also have tactile perception through sensors in our magnificent skin. Finally, robots haven't got the human interaction and reasoning skills of humans.

So, robots are a reality today in industry and they will appear in public spaces in more complex shapes. But in the next two decades, robots will not be human-like, even if they might look like humans. Instead they will remain sophisticated machines.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't plan for the future. At the start of my career as a trade union official, we were busy negotiating 'new technology agreements'. They addressed the direct workforce implications of computerisation, but didn't always tackle the workforce planning and wider economic and social policy implications of automation.

As I said in Monday's Herald feature on the ARI report: "Proper planning and strategy is needed now, not further down the line. We should be anticipating where we are likely to see job losses and putting measures in place to ensure that we have a just transition to new types of jobs.  Industry will not do this, it's very hard to get companies to plan that far in advance, so government needs to step up to the plate."

The ARI report revealed the UK is lagging behind other countries when it comes to preparing for the changes - with education and training the main areas of concern. It lists the UK as number 8 in the world in preparing for the expected rise in robots. Education and training in schools and the workplace is a key concern. The report found that UK primary schools have not focused enough on developing critical thinking and problem solving skills.

That brings me back to the ScotGov/STUC report. It gives us a very balanced view of the evidence, without coming down on one side or the other. However, they highlight that researchers on both sides of the future of jobs debate share concerns over the potential distributional consequences of technological change. The OECD finds that; “low qualified workers are likely to bear the brunt of the adjustment costs... the likely challenge for the future lies in coping with rising inequality". There are also significant regional differences. For example, the OECD report says 33% of jobs in Slovakia are at risk, compared to only 6% in Norway.

The report points to labour market trends in Scotland, few of which have been driven by technology. The Scottish Government points to their labour market strategy and the Fair Work Convention. As well as their support for new industries and the planned Just Transition Commission.

These are all worthwhile initiatives, although they are often stronger on process than delivery. If we are to seriously address the challenges of automation it requires a radical industrial strategy coupled with much stronger Fair Work measures. We need to be more like Norway than Slovakia, otherwise automation will have significant job consequences and create an even more unequal society.