A.I. Just because we can do it doesn’t mean we should

Artificial Intelligence (AI) could determine our roles in the future and determine human societies. AI has the potential to undermine societies  and destabilise human relationships. At present we have the ability to decide which way we wish to go with A.I but we should understand the consequences of using A.I. before we go any further with it’s implementation.

Just because  we can do something doesn’t  necessarily  mean that we should do it

Artificial Intelligence (A.I) is a case in point here and just because we can do it doesn’t  necessarily mean that we should do it. To progress an implement A.I means taking away a humans ability  to do the same thing and give it to a machine of a chunk of code (or both). To progress like this and measure it in only profit and efficiency  terms could be irresponsible. To consider the implementation of A.I. there has to be more consideration given other than just implementation for profit and efficiency gains. We have to learn to consider this topics of  ethics, social  responsibility, macro economics, social factors and even matters of world order. At present the world and various big players ( companies) are pressing ahead with A.I regardless. There seems to be a free laissez-faire attitude among Government’s to just let A.I happen. Nobody  seems to be envisaging the future and what our increasing obsession with A.I. could potentially  lead to.

I once wrote a piece as a suggestion for the Labour Party’s policy on the subject matter of the development of Driverless vehicles and looking at the broader topic of Artificial Intelligence(AI). The development of such vehicles in the UK and for UK markets was something  being actively  encouraged by the Conservative  Government. In this article that  I sent to the Labour Party’s Policy Forum, I suggested that the Labour Party should raise objections to this policy in Parliament and that it should adopt a strategy in opposition to these developments on the grounds of job losses in areas of transport.

The benefits and consequences of implementing Artificial Intelligence (AI) should be considered thoroughly on a case by case basis by governments and not left to be decided by the free market

My suggestion were not welcomed and it was suggested  by some particular individuals that I was a ‘ Luddite’ who opposed change for changes sake. These particular individuals  were in my opinion narrow minded without clear vision to encompass the whole argument.

Far from being a Luddite all this goes to show that I was in fact way ahead of my time. This was possibly 6 years ago before anyone else was questioning the progress of AI. The Tories were embracing  the idea of accepting  driverless  vehicles onto Britain’s road by accepting  the ideas in principle  and allowing further testing. It has only taken this long to be now raising the debate of the consequences  of AI into mainstream public debate.

It’s  so funny to see the members of the Labour  Party publicly  suggesting  caution about the implementation  of A I when they refused to consider my suggestion of having a policy to protect the interests  of workers across many areas from the consequences  of allowing and expanding A I.  It is still my belief that the Labour Party  has no policies or than lip service  to offer on the matter. There is no policy to object to and prevent the use of driverless  vehicles in the UK.

It is obvious that more legislation is needed so that the benefits and consequences of implementing Artificial intelligence (AI) should be considered by governments or another suitably appointed body to thoroughly consider the ethics of using AI to replace humans to do tasks. This is something that cannot be left for the free market to decide how AI is brought in to do tasks that humans can do adequately. Humans should not be losing their jobs simply because artificial intelligence (AI) offers savings to a business or other employer.

Right now the use of driverless  vehicles in the UK  remains the biggest threats to jobs in the transport industry  in the UK  and even worldwide from Artificial Intelligence (AI). There will be many bosses and company  directors of transport related companies awaiting the development  of this technology.  These people  will see it purely  as an investment  opportunity  and an opportunity  to cut jobs and save money  in the long term. The idea will appeal to reckless  entrepreneurs without regard for the implications of their  own success. Individuals getting prepared  to profit from their strategies and without any regard for the consequences  of their actions: seeing only short term gain in exchange  for long term pain.

The consequences  of enterprise by these entrepreneurs  gives little  regard to the long term  consequences  of such actions. Artificial Intelligence will cost jobs simply because it will reduce wage demands from human operatives. These savings over the long term will be very attractive to venture capitalists and even existing businesses in that sector. As human beings  we need to be involved in endeavours to keep busy and make money. The idea of a utopian  society  whereby  we all sit back and relax  whilst machines and do all the work for us simply  will never ever materialise at least not in a capitalist  economic model. In a Capitalist  economic  model the underclass continue to get poorer whilst the rich get richer by exploitation through capital and ownership. Capitalists own the technology which is continually taken away as a resource  from the poorest members. Through technological improvements the Capitalists erode there reliance on the workforce who are systematically made redundant. However appealing this idea is to Capitalists  that they can, through  technological  advances do away with their reliance upon employing  a workforce, it is actually flawed because it disregards economic  principles. Capitalists  get rich on the basis mostly  that they are offering  products on the market for sale. It henceforth  relies on a market  for their product. Economic  Principles are that there is really only market if there are  buyers. Plunging an economic system into recession by reducing the amount of buyers in a market will result in market failure. Recessions are equally  not good for Capitalists. Economics is a science  of equilibrium. Shifting that equilibrium  one way or another disturbs the fine balance and ten everything  fails. Pushing people out of employment through technological  advancements is on way to unbalance  an economy. There is certainly  no Utopian  dream available  for the working  classes. For many technological  advancements in A I are a real threat to jobs. Some industries such as driving are really a last resort for many. Burdening an economy with high levels of unemployment is no answer to a Utopian  dream. Yes A I offers many opportunities  for the entrepreneurs but only as a get rich quick scheme with long term consequences. Short term gain for long term pain. Driverless  vehicles and other forms of job replacing technologies  need to be prevented in the interests  of economic  balance.

Leave a Reply