A bout a year ago, San Francisco-based OpenAI released its chatbot, ChatGPT, triggering an artificial-intelligence (AI) gold rush and reigniting the age-old debate about the effects of automation on human welfare.
The fear of displacement by machines can be traced back to the 19th-century Industrial Revolution, when groups of English handloom weavers, known as Luddites, began destroying the power looms that threatened their livelihoods. The movement, which peaked between 1811 and 1817, was ultimately suppressed by government forces and its leaders were executed or exiled to Australia.
However, the Luddites’ arguments found an unexpected and somewhat ironic champion in renowned economist David Ricardo, who argued in his 1817 book On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation that “the opinion entertained by the laboring class, that the employment of machinery is frequently detrimental to their interests, is not founded on prejudice and error, but is conformable to the correct principles of political economy.”
Illustration: Mountain People
British economist Nassau Senior, for his part, advised the weavers to “get out of that branch of production.”
They ended up doing just that. About 250,000 handloom jobs disappeared between 1820 and 1860.
However, while mechanization ended up benefiting human workers — the UK’s population and per capita real income multiplied over the same period — it adversely affected horses, whose numbers fell sharply as trains and other motorized vehicles replaced horse-drawn transport.
Since the Industrial Revolution, the prevailing pro-machine argument has been that by increasing labor productivity, automation boosts real incomes, allowing more individuals to enjoy higher living standards without corresponding job losses.
Moreover, liberation from tedious menial tasks has enabled us to redirect our energy to more valuable pursuits.
The Luddites’ modern-day counterparts, on the other hand, emphasize the downsides of automation, especially the potential to destroy livelihoods and communities. An equitable distribution of income and power, they argue, is crucial to reaping the long-term benefits of technological progress. Techno-pessimists such as Martin Ford and Daniel Susskind have argued that emerging technologies like AI will create too few new jobs, resulting in increased poverty and “technological unemployment.”
The rise of generative AI and the anticipated arrival of artificial general intelligence — an AI capable of any cognitive task that humans can perform — have supercharged the debate between techno-optimists and techno-skeptics.
For example, in the healthcare sector, a seemingly endless wellspring of tech hype, AI promises improved diagnostics, advanced telemedicine, more effective drugs, and reduced administrative burdens on doctors and nurses, leaving more time for patient care.
This seems to reflect the prevailing view among mainstream experts that generative AI will augment, rather than replace, human jobs. By automating routine tasks, it promises to free humans to pursue more creative work.
To be sure, this transformation will require lifelong learning, making continuous education a condition not just for participating in the job market, but also for accessing an expanding array of online services.
With the advent of generative AI, concerns have shifted from automation-induced job losses to the prospect of a superintelligence going rogue — a fear that dates back to Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus.
Echoing these sentiments, former Google chief executive officer Eric Schmidt recently remarked that while current AI models remain “under human control,” there is a real risk that one could develop the capability for “recursive self-improvement,” gain autonomy, and begin “setting its own goals.”
Eventually, he warned, a “computer cluster” could evolve into a “truly superhuman expert” capable of acting independently.
As experts and academics grow increasingly concerned about AI’s capacity to destroy the world, a growing number of voices have called for AI development to be aligned with human goals and values. There are two ways to achieve this. The first is to restrict the availability and sales of potentially harmful AI-based products, as policymakers in Europe and elsewhere have tried to do by imposing strict regulations on emerging technologies like autonomous vehicles and facial recognition.
One obvious problem with this approach is that reaching a consensus on what constitutes harm is difficult in a world in which moral relativism is the norm. As it is increasingly unclear who “owns” content that is deemed harmful, it is virtually impossible to hold vendors or providers accountable.
Moreover, attempts to regulate the use of technology tend to come too late.
The second way to rein in AI is to limit altogether the development of potentially dangerous products.
However, curbing demand is more complicated than restricting supply, especially in modern societies where competitive forces — commercial and geopolitical — make slowing down technological innovation exceedingly difficult.
The recent turmoil at OpenAI is a case in point. Last month, the company’s board of directors briefly fired CEO Sam Altman, reportedly due to concerns that AI could one day lead to humanity’s extinction. Although Altman was reinstated just days later, the scandal underscored the speed with which ostensibly beneficial technologies could become existential risks.
With rapid commercialization apparently taking precedence over caution, and competition hastening the development of increasingly powerful tools, an AI-induced apocalypse seems increasingly plausible.
The inescapable conclusion is that merely regulating AI is not enough, but by introducing concepts such as neo-Luddism and redistribution into the public debate, we could develop the political and intellectual vocabulary needed to mitigate the threats posed by these emerging technologies.
For example, a neo-Luddite might ask: Why are affluent societies, which already produce more than enough for their citizens to live comfortably, still focused on maximizing GDP growth? One answer might be the lack of a fair distribution of wealth and income that would ensure that the benefits of productivity and efficiency gains are widely shared.
Another explanation is that technology itself is not intrinsically good or bad; it is a means to an end. And in today’s political economy, “technological innovation” is often a euphemism for enabling the rich and powerful to redirect capital from industry to finance, thereby monopolizing the benefits of automation and immiserating everyone else.
Robert Skidelsky, a member of the British House of Lords, is professor emeritus of political economy at Warwick University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS