The AI Conundrum

AI – the common shorthand for Artificial Intelligence in all its many forms and guises (though I’ll leave my thoughts on where the “Intelligence” appears in any meaningful sense for another day) throws up many ethical questions and conflicts.

Shall we talk about the use of AI to produce autonomous weapons and what that could do to the face of warfare or who takes responsibility if one of these “intelligent” machines decides to deliver some death and destruction to a target of “its choice”? Should we talk about who is held responsible when a driverless car inevitably causes a fatal accident? In such a case is the AI considered to have equal status as a human – and therefore capable of equal culpability under law … or does the blame go back up the line to the AI designers and corporations and execs that let the thing loose?

Is it likely that AI machines will develop to the point that they consider humans a nuisance and decide to treat us the way we treat ‘lesser” animals today?

These topics and many more are worthy of discussion – and get plenty of exposure in the media but I want to avoid the dystopian visions and consider a benign possible future – one in which machines of whatever form do all the work that currently occupies humans, act as aids to human intelligence and leave all us humans free to enjoy lunch, explore, have deep thoughts, spend time being creative …

I want to talk about a more fundamental conundrum – from which the discussion could head in many directions – or you might start to look at some of the other questions with new eyes.

In short, how do we get from here to Star Trek?

So What is THE AI Conundrum?

Here’s a circle that needs to be squared:

• We live in a monetarist society in which everything from a cup of coffee to climate change is attributed value measured in money …
• If you want to produce anything – a car, a house, a piece of software it is money that pays for materials and resources to make things happen. No money = no production.
• It follows that AI development needs money to be brought to fruition.
• As AI takes over work currently performed by humans – not just manual jobs, production line workers replaced by robots and delivery drivers replaced by autonomous trucks and drones are far from those who will become jobless as the technology has already shown better performance than professionals such as radiologists, doctors and [gulp!] software developers – lots of people will find themselves jobless.
• Jobless = no income.
• If people (businesses) have paid to develop AI to produce goods but nobody has an income paying job then who buys the stuff that AI machines make – and how do businesses earn a return on their investment in AI?

So, to summarise – people pay money to make machines to do the work of humans – in the process putting those humans out of work and therefore having no income – so cannot pay for whatever the machines produce – so the businesses get no return on investment and go bust.

Something has got to give …

It is clear – to me at least – that development and use of AI to replace human labour and skill (note – there still needs no “intelligence” at work here, these remain programmed machines) is incompatible with a society based on money. Once any object of choice can be produced and delivered to anybody then what use is money? Especially when nobody has any?

You might argue that money (in the form of national currencies, digital coins or gaming chips!) is only a token anyway so just give everyone some tokens. Excellent idea – after all even when machines are performing all jobs two people can’t have a house on the same plot of land with that wonderful view. Some way still has to exist to arbitrate and constrain demand. So all that has been doneis to defer the problem to who decides how to distribute tokens and on what basis.

Star Trek … or return to mediaeval feudalism?

If a way can be found to equitably share the benefits of AI use then the world that results looks an awful lot like the imaginary world of Star Trek. The highest politician has the same right to a drink or meal or housing as the everyday citizen.

The alternative is that the benefits of AI will be restricted to a privileged few – those who paid for development of the technology or those who can pay for its output – or simply those with big enough muscle to fight over and grab the machines.

An interesting road …

At this point one thing can be said with certainty – it will be an interesting road toward the future that AI technology brings. A road that all must travel and all will feel the journey – bumpy or smooth.

Where that road leads determines the future of society and human civilisation.

Deep thought anyone?