If you’re in an industry ripe for disruption by artificial intelligence, thinking about what’s coming inspires strong emotions. Like panic. And outrage.
If you’re a college-educated professional, the economy has worked well for you over the past few decades. As with anything that has lasted for a long time, this seems like the natural order of things — an entitlement, not chronological luck. And to be fair, you didn’t just luck out by having the kinds of natural aptitudes that were highly remunerative in a postindustrial society. You also worked hard to develop those aptitudes into something the market would reward. Now a machine might steal what you earned. This doesn’t just feel bad. It feels like a violation.
These are what the gentle-parenting folks call “big feelings.” Such feelings are particularly big among journalists, because our industry is already suffering badly from tech-induced disruption. We’re not in the mood for any more tech revolutions, thank you very much, and given our influence over the discourse, our dour moods tend to leach into the national psyche.
But we’re hardly the only people worried. Anyone whose job primarily involves data analysis, software coding or writing has to ask themselves whether their job could eventually be automated away, because their bosses are asking that question.
All that raw emotion left people vulnerable last weekend when a little-known firm, Citrini Research, suggested the economy might be headed for an AI-induced free fall. It went viral, and next thing you know, the stock market was having convulsions even though the scenario made little sense.
I won’t belabor the flaws behind the Citrini claims because I covered some of them in a recent column, and if you want Citrini-specific critiques, you can read excellent ones from Paul Krugman, Tyler Cowen or Josh Barro. But I doubt this will be the last time that elites’ anxiety about our personal futures makes people believe the economy is headed for a doom loop.
As I, and others, have pointed out, this is unlikely — a situation where AI radically boosts productivity is likely to be one where incomes rise, not fall. But of course that doesn’t mean every individual will be better off. It was great for most people when mass-produced textiles made clothes much cheaper, but it was bad news for artisanal spinners and weavers. Mass production of readable prose, attractive images, software code or data analytics will be similarly good for humanity but a genuine loss for many current producers.
The only difference is that the people who currently face disruption are influential elites whose private worries shape public discourse — and can move markets when they get out of hand. Remember that the next time an ominous prophecy circulates — or really,whenever you read anything about AI, including this column. I try not to mistake my problems for those of humanity, but no one ever succeeds at fully untangling the two.
For example, you may have read about the growing pushback against data centers, driven by AI fears. The protests are real enough, but are they really about stopping AI, or is this just a general backlash against aesthetically uninspiring local development that might increase electricity or water bills? Writer Matt Yglesias suggests it’s the latter, and I find that convincing. Looking at polls, Americans seem wary about AI but not enraged, and those who have used it seem cautiously optimistic. Yet the AI backlash narrative predominates, perhaps because it’s what speaks most directly to the fears of journalists and their highly educated readers.
It’s also simply more interesting. “NIMBYs don’t like development” is a dog-bites-man story these days, and so is “people want low electricity bills.” “Grassroots rebellion against AI overlords,” on the other hand, seems new and fascinating. As do science fiction tales about a machine-induced Great Depression, which are way more compelling to read than some economics monograph on the complex mechanics of technology diffusion.
You shouldn’t dismiss the alarmists entirely — the details can be useful, even if the overall picture isn’t quite right. Just remember that my problems won’t necessarily be your problems. And remember, too, how limited our imaginations are in the face of a true technological revolution: Neither 18th-century artisans nor their industrial rivals could have deduced the five-day workweek, the interstate highway or the rise of mass higher education from the operations of a primitive textile mill. Whatever is coming, it will almost certainly be weirder and more surprising than any doom-filled prophecy or utopian fantasy you’ll read today.
The post Elites fear the future economy. That bleeds. appeared first on Washington Post.
