AI is Inevitable
It is against the personal interests of not just companies, but all individuals, to just write-off AI as a part of their lives.
In 1811, protesters descended on textile factories in Nottinghamshire, England. They smashed machinery, left threatening messages, and vowed to oppose the continued mechanisation of their profession. This Luddite movement feared that mass adoption of new technology would destroy their livelihoods. And, coupled with other economic and political hardships, they didn’t see technological progress as a boon, but as a death sentence.
The technology they were protesting is now indispensable to modern civilisation. Knitting frames, power looms and other inventions that became increasingly popular during the Industrial Revolution not only make up the foundations of the modern textile industry, but they also enabled the mass manufacture of affordable clothing, and the further creation of jobs in many new sectors of the economy.
For the first time, even the poorest of the poor could afford clothes. And, with the sheer quantity of textiles being manufactured, the world could now be clothed.
The Luddites were wrong. New technology wasn’t the end. It was the beginning of increased prosperity and better living conditions for all.
Similar cases have occurred across human history. The rise of streaming services like Netflix led to the downfall of Blockbuster, but the creation of a lucrative industry that employs tens of thousands of professionals, while also providing access to entertainment that even our still living ancestors would have considered unfathomable mere decades ago.
Rise of AI is Inevitable
Artificial Intelligence (AI) may seem scary. Films like Terminator, The Matrix and iRobot have trained us to fear the rise of smart computers. But not only should we be excited for what these inventions can do for human civilisation, we should not waste our emotional energy on trying to oppose it, because the rise of AI is inevitable.
Calls for regulation of AI are knee-jerk and naïve, not merely because they come from a place of irrational fear. Those fearing the loss of jobs or the rise of a SkyNet demand regulations, but what form are those regulations meant to take? Will AI companies need to comply with certain arbitrary restrictions? Who sets those restrictions? What restrictions? Should they stop developing AI altogether?
Like most cases where the fearful call for regulations, there is very little to be said about the specifics. And where there are specific regulations suggested, even those ignore the broader picture of our world’s political and economic realities.
AI is an arms race. Sometimes, very literally. Tech companies are working to create the best AI models to corner the market. This competition is ultimately good for consumers. When OpenAI was the only prominent kid on the block a few years back, ChatGPT was more of a novelty. Now, competition has pushed it into becoming a staple of many professionals’ work lives.
But AI has also caused an arms race in other sectors. Professionals who don’t use AI will see their productivity start to shrink in comparison with their colleagues. Companies that don’t adopt AI as a part of their workflow will start to suffer as their competitors overtake them.
Of course, there are growing pains. Attempts to replace customer support services with AI have made life frustrating for many. But we are still in the early days of this technology. And, let’s be honest, customer support has seldom ever been helpful.
The fact of the matter is that it is against the personal interests of not just companies, but all individuals, to just write-off AI as a part of their lives. We don’t need to have it replace every aspect of our lives. We can pick and choose different technologies to replace aspects of our lives that it can perform better than us – or that we just don’t want to be concerned with.
Literal Arms Race
But AI is also a literal arms race. Some of the biggest calls for regulation have been on the development of AI weapons technology. The fundamental problem with banning the development of AI in weapons development, is that all it accomplishes is crippling oneself. The problem with an arms race is that you can’t just tell your opponent to stop running.
Even if the West banned military AI, that doesn’t mean that Russia or China will play ball. They may even pretend to abide by regulations, while secretly engaging in military AI development.
Pandora’s box has been opened. AI exists and it is here to stay. If nations are to remain not just relevant, but safe, they can’t put the brakes on developing the best weapons for future battlefields.
Creative Destruction
AI will destroy. We will lose jobs. But we have in the past. Countless equine-related jobs were lost to the automobile industry. Power looms cost millions of jobs in the textile industry. Netflix destroyed Blockbuster, Facebook destroyed MySpace. Or not really.
When a superior mode of production supplants an inferior mode, it is because humans recognise its superiority. It took centuries for the stock frame to start supplanting jobs, because its time wasn’t ready. But when it became relevant, not even the Luddites could stop it.
There is room for certain targeted and thoughtful regulations. But none of these should serve to restrict research, growth or development. Rather, they should exist to protect the inalienable rights of individuals. But most of these, like the prohibition of harmful deepfakes, or the usage of pirated material for machine-learning, likely do not need broad regulations, but rather the enforcement of existing laws. Issues of AI should rather be handled in courts between relevant parties. Not by the heavy-hand of legislators.
AI is here to stay. Its rise is inevitable. There will be growing pains. But these can’t be averted through banning or restricting its growth. All that bans and regulations, internationally, nationally or personally, will accomplish is leaving swathes of people mired in the past.
Rather, we should be focusing on what benefits AI will be able to bring to our civilisation: advances in healthcare, increases in our productivity, computing power that will usher us into the future that bright-eyed science fiction authors have dreamed about. The future is now, and it can’t be regulated.
Nicholas Woode-Smith is the Managing Editor of the Rational Standard. He is an author, economic historian and a senior associate at the Free Market Foundation. He writes in his personal capacity.