A threatening race

“Artificial intelligence and automation are transforming many industries and changing the nature of work. However, the idea that AI is ‘killing’ human jobs is a complex issue with many factors to consider. It's also possible that AI could exacerbate existing social and economic inequalities. In some cases, AI and automation can replace human labour, leading to job losses and reduced demand for certain skills” — this is what came on the board of ChatGPT when this writer typed “How AI is killing human jobs?”. Irrespective of its own admission, Microsoft is allegedly thrilled with Open AI’s ChatGPT, a chatbot that can produce writings that appear to have been written by a human. Most technological developments lead to slow but steady advancement. Then a select few emerge that genuinely alter the game. One of the technologies that can actually revolutionise society is AI. The next ten years are going to see a dramatic shift in how we live and work. Almost every employment, sector, and way of life will be drastically changed. The biggest players in the AI game are the US and China. India is also not far behind and aspires to become the global leader in AI.

But there is a serious challenge as well, and very few are looking at this. Not only for the employees, but also for customers and perhaps investors, this might be disastrous. The issue for workers is clear; there will be fewer occupations requiring effective communication skills. Everyone else should be terrified. The news industry will face causality too. In newsrooms, artificial intelligence has the ability to significantly improve productivity, automate reporting, and increase accuracy. However, there could also be negative effects.

As AI is trained on biased data, it may reinforce and amplify these biases in its output, which could lead to the spread of misinformation and, not to mention, news articles that lack a human perspective. Because AI-generated news stories do not have the human perspective and emotional connection that are crucial to journalism, the quality of the news and readers’ engagement may suffer.

An existential risk is also posed by AI. It may seem like a plot devised to suggest that AI could threaten extinction, which is anything that could result in the total loss of human potential. But if you concur with researchers that AI might surpass humans in intelligence this century, there are a number of reasons to be concerned. As Stephen Hawking said “The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race…. It would take off on its own, and re-design itself at an ever-increasing rate. Humans, who are limited by slow biological evolution, couldn’t compete, and would be superseded.” Humans have predominated the world, not because of our size or strength, but rather because of our brains. Our nearest relatives and one of the next most intelligent creatures on Earth, the chimpanzees, are currently in danger of being extinct, because of our actions, not theirs. Even if it's a flawed comparison, the worry is that, in the future, powerful AI may put us in a similar situation to chimpanzees.

Let's take a look at the metro in India. Over the past several years, the entire system has changed; everything from the ticket counter to the metro driver is now automated. While the passengers are comfortable and the metro has seen a boost in profits, there has been a significant loss in human employment.

Companies will increasingly rely on generative AIs like ChatGPT to soothe irate callers with witty and comforting remarks rather than hiring people to connect with customers. Less options to launch a career will result from fewer entry-level positions, continuing a trend started by earlier digital technologies. Consumers will also be harmed. While completely routine questions may be handled by chatbots, routine questions are rarely the reason customers call customer support. You want to speak with a skilled, sympathetic professional who has the capacity to gather resources and coordinate effective solutions when there is a genuine problem.

In a perfect world, new businesses that provide better customer service would appear and take the market share. But in the actual world, there are a lot of obstacles that prevent new businesses from growing quickly. You might adore your neighbourhood bakery, a helpful airline agent, or a specific doctor, but consider what it takes to start a new grocery store chain, airline, or hospital. Existing businesses benefit greatly from significant forms of market power that provide them the freedom to select which technologies to adopt and how to employ them.

Fundamentally, new businesses that provide better goods and services typically need new technologies, such as digital tools that can increase workers’ productivity and support the development of better, more individualised services for customers. But since automation is prioritised in AI efforts, these tools aren't even being developed. In the ChatGPT era, investors in publicly traded firms will also suffer. These businesses might enhance the services they provide to customers by putting money into new technology that would increase productivity and the ability of their workforce to take on new responsibilities, as well as by offering training to employees who need to improve their abilities. However, they are not. Many business leaders continue to be fixated on a strategy that will ultimately be remembered as self-defeating: reducing employment and maintaining wages as low as possible. The reason why executives pursue these reductions is because it is what the smart kids (analysts, consultants, finance professors and other executives) advise them to do. These trends have dire implications for Australians’ spending power – the engine of Australia's economy. But as we explain in our forthcoming book — ‘Power in Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity’ — a sputtering economic engine need not lie in our future. After all, the introduction of new machinery and technological breakthroughs have had very different consequences in the past.

Over a century ago, Henry Ford revolutionised car production by investing heavily in new electrical machinery and developing a more efficient assembly line. Yes, these new technologies brought some amount of automation. But the reorganisation of the factory, which accompanied electrification, also created new tasks for workers and thousands of new jobs with higher wages. Ford led the way in demonstrating that creating human-complementary technology is good business.

AI now provides a chance to accomplish the same. Nurses, teachers, and customer service agents can employ AI-powered digital tools to better understand their situations and what would help patients, pupils, and customers achieve better results. Instead of replacing people, the predictive capacity of computers could be used to assist them. The capacity to use AI-generated recommendations appropriately will be acknowledged as an important human skill if AIs are employed to provide recommendations for human evaluation.

Sadly, these chances are being passed up since the majority of tech leaders continue to invest extensively in creating software that can perform tasks that humans can already perform rather well. They are aware that selling their goods to businesses with narrow perspectives will make it simple for them to make a profit. Everyone is focused on using AI to reduce labour costs, giving little thought to both the current and future purchasing power of Australians, Americans, Indians and the immediate consumer experience. Ford recognised that it was pointless to create automobiles in large quantities if the general public couldn't afford them. In contrast, the most powerful corporations of today are utilising the new technologies in ways that will destroy our society as a whole.

The writer is a senior journalist. Views expressed are personal