AI Prompts Humanity, Incorporated
AI Prompts Humanity, Incorporated
I've had a lot of time to stew on this topic.
A colleague prompted me to discuss my thoughts on the new wave of artificial intelligence tech that's starting to sweep over the software-as-a-service industry. During the conversation, I felt I made some pretty good points, but I knew talking on the spot wasn't going to convey my thoughts as well as writing them.
So, here we are. Just a heads up though, I'm not polarized about A.I (yet). I see many problems A.I. can solve, and am aware of the amount of problems it can create for rest of us. There are armies of people, with different jobs and experiences that can help make that point clearer than I can; people who can properly convey the risk of widespread A.I adoption.
That's not what I'm writing about however. I'm not focusing on what the A.I is and what it means, but rather - who has the A.I and what that means for the rest of us. I'm talking about the potential subscription of all humanity to corporation that will have influence over every other corporation on the planet.
Well, I mean - worse than it already is. Let me explain.
Disclaimer - I am just a software engineer
I'm not a leading A.I. expert, or have much experience with practical machine learning besides working with whatever people have already done. I don't use ChatGPT every day to plan my meals or predict futures.
I'm not as concerned about the robots taking over; I'm more concerned about the implications of who's controlling every single fibre of A.I that exists in the world, their lack of social responsibility, and the further risks that we might wane by not considering the perspectives.
One machine to do it all, several times over
Automation isn't new. However, having a single machine or tool that can automate almost everything, has not happened for a quite a long while.
Coal allowed us to power machines that could take the effort of dozens of humans and animals, and condensed that energy into a few rocks you can throw into a furnace. From there, we moved on to electricity, which again, made it possible for us to start doing things that weren't remotely possible before. Not only did we speed things up, but we also enabled the reduction of time needed to do things like cleaning, cooking, staying alive, and coincidentally - making even more things to move things forward.
And then came the ability to instantly communicate across the world, at the flick of a switch. People at the time were likely struck with the feeling that "change" has happened, and that it can't be stopped. And knowing you have the faintest idea of where that might lead is something that makes the blood pump a little stronger.
You can love or hate that feeling, but I know you probably felt it the first time you saw one of these new emergent AIs do their thing, in person or not.
This is the path humanity chose. We conspired and collaborated to create technology to enhance our ability to do work on the world. And for better or for worse, fundamentally changed the world over and over again. People were displaced, people were garnished, and that same old "they will steal our jobs" narrative kept getting pushed down our necks - every single time, without pointing out the purveyors of the changes directly.
Legions of postal workers displaced by the telegram. Millions of workers displaced by the invention of the steam engine. Millions of ointment bottlers displaced by the creation of penicillin (you wont be missed). An unfathomable amount more displaced by the semi-conductor.
The common line between all of these innovations? Corporations. Businesses. Conglomerates.
Wherever money flows, so have these sorts of innovations that resulted in reduced wages, fewer jobs, and eventual deprecations of entire lines of work.
With few exceptions, many of the innovations purveyed by careless and money hungry corporations would displace a specific skill type. Coal and electricity lead to general automation technologies that displaced manual work, and computers pushed that even further along, displacing more jobs requiring manual precision. And each of these displacements were localized to a certain handful of industries, and under the guise of many many different entities.
OpenAI is open to use, but not open to control
OpenAI, guised as a non-profit, is a an entity that current holds the largest stake in artificial intelligence, across the entire planet. They are technological "keyholders," and posses a insubstantial amount of control.
Do they have any clauses about reducing the environmental impact of their technology? No.
Do they care if anyone gets outmoded by their product? Entire fields of work compromised because they're trying to be "competitive" and incentivize organizations to adopt the technology? No.
It would cost OpenAPI nothing to add to their terms of service ethnical standards, something to prevent their technology from being used by other, greedy organizations to displace even more people - but they don't. This is certainly a hot take (and maybe it'll be subject to change), but their choice feels intentional. Maximizing impact of a technology usually indicates a complete lack of social responsibility.
I look forward to a future where AI isn't within in the clutches of corporate entities that only understand their "obligations" to their bottom line. I look forward to a future where, perhaps, AI is decentralized and not solely controlled by entities that do not have our collective interests in mind. Being a keyholder has risks, but it also should come with responsibilities.