The scariest aspect of AI I fear is its use by the government to control the people. Apparently China is already using it to amplify their surveillance apparatus selling it as a public safety good that prevents crime.
While I expect AI will bring benefits, I have two big fears about it:
It will not be conducive to original thinking. I worry we humans will outsource far too much of our intellectual and creative capacities to AI.
If it really does destroy huge numbers of jobs, the homicide rate will rise. A large population of people who can't work or can't upgrade their skills fast enough will include many young men with too much free time and a very low sense of self-worth. That's especially dangerous in a country full of guns.
Goodness what a silly article. "Liberals should support good things and oppose bad things." Genius.
The policy challenge of AI is not that we can't predict what will happen with it, but that we absolutely understand what the goals of the AI boosters are and how they plan to achieve them, but we as a society (including "liberals") are just as absolutely unwilling to take any steps to question, let alone channel, curb or outlaw any aspect of those ambitions.
The big thing that seems to be missed in all of these discussions -- whether it's automation or AI displacing workers -- is the basic tax approach of the American government. You don't automate a job, or replace it with AI, without using energy. In America, we tax labor; we don't tax energy usage (in fact we typically subsidize it!). This puts labor at a disadvantage. It also does nothing to encourage energy conservation. I'm not suggesting that income taxes could be completely eliminated, or that taxing energy sources (or natural resources in general) would protect every American job, but a move in this direction would help tip the scales in the favor of everyday workers (not to mention help us reduce pollution, slow climate change, become more energy independent, etc.). It would also help deter the bubble that is presently forming in the AI industry, because it would increase the cost of such development and give pause to those pushing such development. Moving from taxes on labor to taxes on energy (or natural resources) -- as part of a comprehensive economic package -- would help limit the damaging aspects of such developments, without the government ever having to consider specific legislative solutions!
Good article.The issue that I wrestle with is how to balance the effects of possible breakthroughs in medical science against the likely massive losses of "menial" jobs. Economically, they don't balance.
AI is a loooong way away from Terminator-type concerns. However, there are, as the saying goes, "clear and present dangers" being manifested right now nonetheless. Those that Democrats should be concerned with, and in fact should be included in their platform, involve regulation, not fear. First, AI uses a tremendous amount of electricity. As a result, there are a number of coal-fired power plant units that were scheduled to retire whose lives have been spared in order to power crypto mining and data centers (also note that some crypto mining operations have pivoted to AI data centers). Because coal-fired electricity generation is, in most areas, not economically competitive with wind and solar (even for mine-mouth operations), this in and of itself has caused rate increases. Of course, extending the lives of coal-fired power plant units causes more nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and carbon dioxide (the latter contributing to global warming) to be emitted. Compounding this concern, the fact that data centers use so much electricity further causes the rates to go up for everyone. So the solution here for Democrats should be to start with requiring mandatory data reporting on how much electricity is being used by AI data centers, and the pollution they emit. There was a move in the Energy Information Administration to do this, but guess what—it was cancelled by the Trump administration. This situation should be politically bundled with other concerns regarding the tech bros, so the public understands money is being moved from their pockets to those of the tech bros, and the environment is being damaged, so they can make more money. Second, as the above article indicates, deep fakes are a huge concern. At this point, anyone with a laptop can generate realistic AI-generated images and videos for political gain (e.g., King Trump's recent disgusting jet fighter video), or to harm others. If this is not regulated soon, our very sense of reality will be irrevocably distorted, again so that tech bros can make more money. So, in sum, Democrats must pass AI regulation that requires that (1) existing environmental regulations that would have required additional controls on coal-fired power plants are actually enforced so coal fairly competes with renewables, (2) AI data centers use of electricity is separately accounted for such that it does not raise the rates for everyone, and (3) that social media requires that any posted AI-generated picture or video is identified as such. The latter is likely the most challenging but is nevertheless essential to the health of our society.
"No one should have to vacuum their own floor if an AI vacuum cleaner can sweep up for you (without ruining the shag carpeting)." This one I actually disagree with. If we don't have to do any work to maintain our homes/selves/lives, we will not, I believe, simply fill that hole with more creativity. Learning the discipline of cleaning, vacuuming, washing the dishes - all of it builds the muscles required for sustained creativity, which is anything but easy. It also gives us the ability to be engaging with the real world and our own physical environments, from which we have become increasingly abstracted (see: what I'm doing right now). So many of the moms I've talked to lately are lamenting the invention of the washing machine. Romanticizing, sure, the idea of a bunch of women washing clothes by the river. But pointing to a very real alienation from the community work of physically maintaining our lives, worlds, clothes, floors, gardens, whatever. If we are going to be choosy about what AI replaces and what it frees us up to do, I would not actually choose this (also: I have had a Roomba for probably 15 years. I even toured the iRobot factory with my kids and a bunch of their friends, for which I was (surprisingly) gifted a mopping robot probably 12 years ago. They are awesome, and maybe have their place in the world, but I MUCH prefer vacuuming myself. It's much more satisfying, both in process and result. I guess you could call this an ode to vacuuming).
It would be nice if the left were constituted so that an argument like the following had more natural traction:
"When AI companies develop new products, they are exercising basic rights. As long as they don't steal, force workers, etc., and as long as they pay their taxes, it would be improper for a duly constituted limited government founded on consent of the government for protection of rights to interfere.
"Similarly, when other companies buy AI products, they are exercising basic rights. This may result in job loss for some of their workers, for whom AI is a substitute. Nonetheless, the companies are exercising basic rights. It would be improper for government to interfere to protect those jobs. The companies do not have a duty to keep employees on if it's not in their economic interest to do so.
"It doesn't matter if the majority has Luddite beliefs and would rather hamstring technological change in order to preserve jobs that are no longer needed. The government has no proper authority to act on such majority opinion. What rights it possesses are delegated from the natural right to self-defense that would be enjoyed by citizens prior to the social contract. Forcing companies to maintain inefficient arrangements to preserve make work jobs is not among the rights that people would primitively enjoy, so it's not among the rights that they can at legitimately delegate to government. Government just doesn't have this power. No just government ever could."
This argument is actually true as a matter of rightly grounded philosophical ethics, but also, it's instrumentally useful. A political movement that it believes in this has an effective way of binding itself to the mast, so to speak, maintaining consistency and not running in circles as it chases the latest evolutions of panicky public opinion. That's part of becoming fit to lead.
We won the Cold War. Let's not forget the ideology that enabled us to win it.
The scariest aspect of AI I fear is its use by the government to control the people. Apparently China is already using it to amplify their surveillance apparatus selling it as a public safety good that prevents crime.
Yes, I agree.
While I expect AI will bring benefits, I have two big fears about it:
It will not be conducive to original thinking. I worry we humans will outsource far too much of our intellectual and creative capacities to AI.
If it really does destroy huge numbers of jobs, the homicide rate will rise. A large population of people who can't work or can't upgrade their skills fast enough will include many young men with too much free time and a very low sense of self-worth. That's especially dangerous in a country full of guns.
Goodness what a silly article. "Liberals should support good things and oppose bad things." Genius.
The policy challenge of AI is not that we can't predict what will happen with it, but that we absolutely understand what the goals of the AI boosters are and how they plan to achieve them, but we as a society (including "liberals") are just as absolutely unwilling to take any steps to question, let alone channel, curb or outlaw any aspect of those ambitions.
The big thing that seems to be missed in all of these discussions -- whether it's automation or AI displacing workers -- is the basic tax approach of the American government. You don't automate a job, or replace it with AI, without using energy. In America, we tax labor; we don't tax energy usage (in fact we typically subsidize it!). This puts labor at a disadvantage. It also does nothing to encourage energy conservation. I'm not suggesting that income taxes could be completely eliminated, or that taxing energy sources (or natural resources in general) would protect every American job, but a move in this direction would help tip the scales in the favor of everyday workers (not to mention help us reduce pollution, slow climate change, become more energy independent, etc.). It would also help deter the bubble that is presently forming in the AI industry, because it would increase the cost of such development and give pause to those pushing such development. Moving from taxes on labor to taxes on energy (or natural resources) -- as part of a comprehensive economic package -- would help limit the damaging aspects of such developments, without the government ever having to consider specific legislative solutions!
Good article.The issue that I wrestle with is how to balance the effects of possible breakthroughs in medical science against the likely massive losses of "menial" jobs. Economically, they don't balance.
AI is a loooong way away from Terminator-type concerns. However, there are, as the saying goes, "clear and present dangers" being manifested right now nonetheless. Those that Democrats should be concerned with, and in fact should be included in their platform, involve regulation, not fear. First, AI uses a tremendous amount of electricity. As a result, there are a number of coal-fired power plant units that were scheduled to retire whose lives have been spared in order to power crypto mining and data centers (also note that some crypto mining operations have pivoted to AI data centers). Because coal-fired electricity generation is, in most areas, not economically competitive with wind and solar (even for mine-mouth operations), this in and of itself has caused rate increases. Of course, extending the lives of coal-fired power plant units causes more nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and carbon dioxide (the latter contributing to global warming) to be emitted. Compounding this concern, the fact that data centers use so much electricity further causes the rates to go up for everyone. So the solution here for Democrats should be to start with requiring mandatory data reporting on how much electricity is being used by AI data centers, and the pollution they emit. There was a move in the Energy Information Administration to do this, but guess what—it was cancelled by the Trump administration. This situation should be politically bundled with other concerns regarding the tech bros, so the public understands money is being moved from their pockets to those of the tech bros, and the environment is being damaged, so they can make more money. Second, as the above article indicates, deep fakes are a huge concern. At this point, anyone with a laptop can generate realistic AI-generated images and videos for political gain (e.g., King Trump's recent disgusting jet fighter video), or to harm others. If this is not regulated soon, our very sense of reality will be irrevocably distorted, again so that tech bros can make more money. So, in sum, Democrats must pass AI regulation that requires that (1) existing environmental regulations that would have required additional controls on coal-fired power plants are actually enforced so coal fairly competes with renewables, (2) AI data centers use of electricity is separately accounted for such that it does not raise the rates for everyone, and (3) that social media requires that any posted AI-generated picture or video is identified as such. The latter is likely the most challenging but is nevertheless essential to the health of our society.
"No one should have to vacuum their own floor if an AI vacuum cleaner can sweep up for you (without ruining the shag carpeting)." This one I actually disagree with. If we don't have to do any work to maintain our homes/selves/lives, we will not, I believe, simply fill that hole with more creativity. Learning the discipline of cleaning, vacuuming, washing the dishes - all of it builds the muscles required for sustained creativity, which is anything but easy. It also gives us the ability to be engaging with the real world and our own physical environments, from which we have become increasingly abstracted (see: what I'm doing right now). So many of the moms I've talked to lately are lamenting the invention of the washing machine. Romanticizing, sure, the idea of a bunch of women washing clothes by the river. But pointing to a very real alienation from the community work of physically maintaining our lives, worlds, clothes, floors, gardens, whatever. If we are going to be choosy about what AI replaces and what it frees us up to do, I would not actually choose this (also: I have had a Roomba for probably 15 years. I even toured the iRobot factory with my kids and a bunch of their friends, for which I was (surprisingly) gifted a mopping robot probably 12 years ago. They are awesome, and maybe have their place in the world, but I MUCH prefer vacuuming myself. It's much more satisfying, both in process and result. I guess you could call this an ode to vacuuming).
It would be nice if the left were constituted so that an argument like the following had more natural traction:
"When AI companies develop new products, they are exercising basic rights. As long as they don't steal, force workers, etc., and as long as they pay their taxes, it would be improper for a duly constituted limited government founded on consent of the government for protection of rights to interfere.
"Similarly, when other companies buy AI products, they are exercising basic rights. This may result in job loss for some of their workers, for whom AI is a substitute. Nonetheless, the companies are exercising basic rights. It would be improper for government to interfere to protect those jobs. The companies do not have a duty to keep employees on if it's not in their economic interest to do so.
"It doesn't matter if the majority has Luddite beliefs and would rather hamstring technological change in order to preserve jobs that are no longer needed. The government has no proper authority to act on such majority opinion. What rights it possesses are delegated from the natural right to self-defense that would be enjoyed by citizens prior to the social contract. Forcing companies to maintain inefficient arrangements to preserve make work jobs is not among the rights that people would primitively enjoy, so it's not among the rights that they can at legitimately delegate to government. Government just doesn't have this power. No just government ever could."
This argument is actually true as a matter of rightly grounded philosophical ethics, but also, it's instrumentally useful. A political movement that it believes in this has an effective way of binding itself to the mast, so to speak, maintaining consistency and not running in circles as it chases the latest evolutions of panicky public opinion. That's part of becoming fit to lead.
We won the Cold War. Let's not forget the ideology that enabled us to win it.