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.