Will we squander the AI opportunity?
The recent Artificial Intelligence Action Summit in Paris stressed in its many discussions the need to steer AI toward a more socially beneficial direction. At a time of increasingly loud calls for AI acceleration from Silicon Valley, and now from the United States government, the opportunity to focus on what we want from the technology was like a breath of fresh air.
As I noted in one of my speeches, we should start by asking what is valuable and worth amplifying in human societies. What makes us so special, or at least successful in evolutionary terms, is our ability to devise solutions to problems large and small, to try new things, and to find meaning in such efforts.
We have a capacity not only to create knowledge, but also to share it. Though the human journey has not always been smooth, as our capabilities, machines, and knowledge sometimes cause profound harm, constant inquiry and prolific sharing of information is essential to what we are.
For more than 200,000 years, technology has been central to this story. From the days of stone tools to the present, we have built the solutions to our challenges. From oral storytelling and the invention of writing to the printing press and the internet, we have developed new and better ways of sharing knowledge.
Within the past 200 years, we have also figured out how to experiment better and more freely, and have communicated this knowledge, too. The scientific process gave us established facts, allowing each generation to build on its predecessors’ advances.
While economic development has created tremendous inequality between and within countries, people almost everywhere today are healthier and more prosperous than they would have been in the 18th century.
AI could invigorate this trend by complementing human skills, talents, and knowledge, improving our decision-making, experimentation, and application of useful knowledge.
Some may question whether we need AI for this purpose. After all, we already live in an age of information abundance; everything is technically accessible through the internet. But useful information is scarce.
It is relevant practical knowledge, not mere information, for instance, that makes factory workers more productive and enables electricians to handle new equipment and perform more sophisticated tasks.
AI, properly developed and used, can provide not just “a bicycle for the mind,” but truly expand our ability to think and act with greater understanding, independent of coercion or manipulation.
Admittedly, AI also presents one of the gravest threats we’ve ever faced. The risk is not only that superintelligent machines could someday rule over us; it is that AI will undermine our ability to learn, experiment, share knowledge, and derive meaning from our activities.
AI will greatly diminish us if it ceaselessly eliminates tasks and jobs; overcentralizes information and discourages human inquiry and experiential learning; empowers a few companies to rule over our lives and creates a two-tier society with vast inequalities and status differences. It may even destroy democracy and human civilization as we know it.
But nothing is preordained. We can devise better ways to govern our societies and choose a direction for technology that boosts knowledge acquisition and maximizes human development. We can also ensure that AI creates more good jobs and enhanced capabilities for everyone, regardless of their education and income level.
The public must recognize that this socially desirable path is technically feasible. AI will move in a pro-human direction only if technologists, engineers, and executives work together with democratic institutions, and if developers in the US, Europe, and China listen to the five billion people who live in other parts of the world.
We desperately need more thoughtful advice from experts and inspiring leadership from politicians, whose focus should be on incentivizing pro-human AI through policy and regulatory frameworks.
But we also need more than regulation. One hopes that European AI companies and researchers can show that there are alternatives to the Silicon Valley model.
To achieve this demonstration effect, European society must encourage the more socially beneficial direction of AI. European leaders need to invest in the necessary digital infrastructure and design regulations that do not discourage investment or drive away talented AI researchers. Financing mechanisms that successful start-ups need to scale up must be put in place.
Without a robust AI industry of its own, Europe will have little to no influence on the direction of AI globally. The Jakarta Post/Asia News Network
—————-
Daron Acemoglu is a 2024 Nobel laureate in economics and institute professor of Economics at MIT.
—————-
The Philippine Daily Inquirer is a member of the Asia News Network, an alliance of 22 media titles in the region.
