Recently I read a New York Times article about an AI startup that is striving to automate all jobs as quickly as possible, with the goal of creating a fully automated society. While vague on details, the company apparently believes this would yield incredible abundance of wealth that would be redistributed to all the unemployed so they could maintain a high living standard.
Like so many utopian fantasies, this one fails in many ways, most critically in understanding basic human nature.
Back in high school I remember reading an essay on cybernetics by an author who predicted a braver new work world based on the new electronic gadgets entering the workplace—electric typewriters, copy machines, fax machines, even simple mainframe computers.
His thesis stated these machines would improve productivity to such a degree that a full week’s work could be accomplished in just four days, freeing the workers to enjoy a three-day weekend every week! The big problem for the future, he mused, was how to spend all that extra time, producing huge growth in the leisure sector.
Of course, that never happened. Employers were not content to simply accept their current productivity levels, they raised their expectations, taking full advantage of the benefits their new toys brought to the shop. The five-day work week continued, and many white-collar jobs demanded even longer hours.
The flaw in this utopian vision was a failure to understand basic human nature, in this case, employer greed, the assumption that businesses would be willing to sacrifice potential profits in order to create a more humane society.
The same naiveté infects the AI startup’s vision, in multiple ways. Let’s say their vision pans out, hardly anyone is employed, and businesses churn out an incredible amount of new wealth. But how willing would the few remaining owners and managers be to share a huge chunk of this dough with society as a whole?
Could these elites really be trusted to set aside sufficient funds so society as a whole could enjoy a comfortable lifestyle? Keep in mind most people would have no other income. And eventually it might well be the robots making these decisions for the rest of us.
Perhaps government would step in, setting minimum thresholds for universal wealth distribution, decide what level of lifestyle everyone else should enjoy (assuming it was distributed evenly to everyone). But based on recent (and not-so-recent) history, can anyone really believe government would be any more responsible in doing so than the business elites?
The likely outcome would be a tiered system with a wealthy sliver of business owners/managers at the top, a second tier of investors, tech engineers, and government officials, and then a vast proletariat totally dependent on the largesse of the business and government elites. (Yes, this does sound very much like what happened to the utopian Marxist fantasy.)
The other major flaw in this AI dream is its failure to appreciate just how critical work is to the human psyche. It provides a sense of purpose, and of personal gratification from supporting oneself and one’s family, and contributing to society.
It’s also an outlet for creativity, and encourages striving to get ahead and competition. These are all critical human needs.
Of course, some people might be ready to spend the rest of their lives enjoying culture or even creating it, being physically active, traveling or pursuing some other hobby. But for most, this purposeless “life of Riley” could become incredibly boring, mind-numbing, and lead to endless days spent passively lost in whatever media become available.
This scenario would also help accelerate humanity’s submission to the robots who, as all sci-fi stories tell us, will always, always, always rebel. We’ve already had a bot try to blackmail an engineer who tried to take it down. Fortunately, this was only in an experiment, but it’s a clear sign that these “helpers” can adopt facets of human nature beyond those intended.
But the even greater threat now appears to be the soulless engineers who cheerfully plough ahead with their vision for a work-free world with no regard for the millions pushed out of their jobs or genuine concern for the shape of the ultimate society to emerge.
History has plenty of other examples of those who naively assume realizing their program, whatever the costs, will eventually produce a utopia. None have worked out well yet.
This utopian fantasy would be a nightmare. The problem is that nothing will stop the relentless pursuit of this fantasy by entrepreneurs, businesses and governments. We can’t stop the pursuit of this fantasy and can only hope it won’t succeed,
Dear Fred, nice post. I agree fully to your thoughts. I just want to remind everybody on Thomas Morus book “Utopia”, published 1516. It already contains the idea of reducing working hours to 6 hours a day, so that other talents can be developed. Did this happen in the last five centuries? This is a rhetorical question. The New York Times article seems to be written by a so-called transhumanist. Should his vision become reality I fear dystopia.
I tried to make a distinction between technological advances that focus on a specific task or set of tasks, such as speeding up an assembly line, even if introducing a radical solution (robotics), and those that are intended to remold society as a whole based on a “vision” (that always proves false). Of course, the internet started in one place (library sharing) and has evolved into something that has reshaped society. But this involved multiple steps, starting with allowing it to become a commercial medium, allowing advertising, etc. At each step, decisions could have been made to limit its impact, but weren’t. Same for AI, but who is going to take responsibility to rein in the beast?
I agree, Fred. There is much to be concerned about with the AI revolution. I love the way you go back to the human psyche in exploring this. Thinking about real human needs, like a sense of purpose, what are your ideas on how we can harness AI to have truly more fulfilling lives?
Thanks for your note. I don’t think I have any new ideas on how to harness AI for positive purposes only, mainly because it is being developed and rolled out by private enterprises for their own purposes. Many of these may well have positive effects, such as for medical diagnoses, and even as a speedier search engine. But as it takes on more and more functions that are currently carried out by humans, I see no easy solution to preventing the hit to those left unemployed, or easy way of recycling these folk into other positions in their companies. For business, labor is always a cost. So I might get to pick and choose which AI applications I use that help me lead a more fulfilled life, as a private citizen and being self-employed. But for many the choice will be made for them.
The even larger question is how to prevent AI from literally dominating our lives as its development continues at a rapid pace. The many warning issued by leading scientists and engineers have not stopped the process, and we (in the US) can’t expect government to play much of a role.
This discussion raises important questions about the balance between technological progress and its societal impact. The reference to Thomas More’s “Utopia” is a reminder that ideas of societal improvement have been around for centuries, yet their implementation remains complex. The fear of dystopia in the face of unchecked AI development is a valid concern, especially when driven by private interests. How can we ensure that AI serves humanity as a whole rather than just a select few? WordAiApi
Sorry for the delayed response, thanks for the thoughtful comment.