"The Market" vs AI

Annamaria on Monday˜

 It is generally believed that in a capitalist economy business leaders decide on their next steps based on how they think "the market" will respond.  Lately, I have been thinking about the inherent dangers of such decisions in an era of ultra-rapid change. Considering the speed at which we're moving, guessing what happens next is a tricky undertaking.

It looks (to me anyway) that in chasing profits, "the market" has prejudices.  Above anything else, it prefers the lowest possible costs.  But that means, it wants the greatest quantity even it it means sacrificing quality.  Fast beats out slow, and machine made wins over human made.

As I approached this topic, I had a long conversation with my dear friend Sibylle Westbrook, who is well known to crime writers as an enthusiast of our genre, as well as an author of children's books.  When I brought up my topic of today, we wandered into a conversation of how the fashion industry works in this regard.  Sibylle's an expert in the field.  As a case in point, she brought up the current enthusiasm for Fast Fashion: clothes that are cheap and plentiful but because the are "the latest fad," need not be durable.

 This can be fun for a lot of people and produce delightfully large bottom lines to manufacturers.  The market says "go for it."  But let's hold on for a second.  What about the downside, such as the environmental costs of manufacturing clothes with a built-in short life span and shipping them around the world.  To say nothing of the millions of tons of cast off fabric clogging up the trash.  And what about the quality of life of the workers in faraway countries.  As usual in such scenarios, those who benefit from the situation are not the ones who have to clean up the mess.  Or to pay for the clean up.  Looked at with these points in mind, those "bargains" don't really come cheap.

The growth of Artificial Intelligence is a thorny case in point.  And for me, the most urgent one.  The AI band wagon is full of happy participants.  Many, many proponents in corporations are rapidly letting AI take over jobs from human beings, pesky things that we are.  We want decent wages and benefits.  We sometimes get sick.  We can walk out if we can get a better deal elsewhere.  AI is so much cheaper. 

But is it?  Really?  Are we sure that the quality of a company's products and services will be just as good with AI?  If a company cuts staff because AI can take over things like writing reports, can management trust that  those reports are well thought out and germane?  Are we really progressing if we accept/demand that workers use AI instead of their own brains?

And what about the concomitant costs?  Are they all being considered when we decide what is best?

I have been following the writings of Paul Krugman, a Nobel prize winning economist.  He is even more skeptical than I.  And, as economists do, he bases his conclusions on facts.  He worries about the gargantuan amount of electricity that AI installations require. Even if power production levels can be raised in time to keep up with AI's growth, the cost will go up fast and furiously. Chances are that the cost of electrical power will rise for everyone, not just for the tech companies. In fact, that has already started to happen. Then, there are the environmental impacts of huge increases in power production.  Are these outcomes being considered before the crossover to AI?

Regular readers of this blog might have seen my doubts about the wisdom of allowing AI to be used in schools. I fear for the brain development of nine-year-olds. I am also quite concerned that the latest batch of college grads are having a dreadful time trying to find entry-level jobs because employers have turned entry-level work over to AI. Entry-level jobs are the doorway to new staff members becoming highly competent and hard-working members of a corporation's staff.  Where are those new employees going to come from? Will the jobs at the next level up have to be filled with raw recruits?  Is having ignorant people doing higher level work the right choice? 

There are lots of question marks in this post.  I don't have the answers.  But I think that these questions are important. They may be vital.

The View from Afar

Michael - Thursday

Sometimes my friends ask me why I follow US politics. After all, I live in South Africa and most Americans don’t follow US politics. Well, I’ve spent quite a bit of time in the US one way and another and, when all is said and done, US politics matter to everyone. A change of government philosophy in Zimbabwe – or South Africa for that matter – will hardly cause a ripple on the surface of world affairs. But if the US casts a pebble into the water, it may cause choppy waves all over the place.  Mind you, it’s not always clear that one can predict the way presidents will behave. George W Bush was not one of my favorite leaders, yet he did a lot for Africa. He had a serious interest in the continent, and directed a lot of aid and support for medical and other purposes this way.  Maybe not all of it was well used, but it made a significant impact. On the other hand, Barrack Obama – still rumored by some people to have been born on this continent! – has been much less forthcoming. His interests lie elsewhere – perhaps mainly in the thankless task of trying to understand and coexist with the Muslim word.

So with Super Tuesday just behind us, it seems reasonable to speculate about the path ahead. Hillary has trounced Bernie outside his home turf; in the end his appeal doesn’t really seem to have extended beyond his white liberal base. The denunciation of the evils of Wall Street – however real - tends to pall after the fiftieth rally. Is there really such a big disagreement between the candidates on that?  It’s a bit like Jeremy Corbyn saying he’s “not on the same side of the argument” as David Cameron (about whether the UK should stay in or withdraw from the European Community). Cameron thinks the UK should stay in. On the other hand, Corbyn thinks…the UK should stay in.

Actually Bernie did better than I would have guessed picking up Minnesota, Oklahoma and Colorado by small margins as well as sweeping Vermont. But he lost badly in the South.  So Hillary will be leading the Democratic Party into the fray in November, carrying with her a lot of baggage, but not all of it bad. People know who she is. She’s not perfect, but she’s paid her dues.

As for the Donald, well, Cruz (Texas) and Rubio (Minnesota again) gave him a run for his money. And I do mean HIS money. He doesn't go for the PACs either. (As has been pointed out, he and Bernie have several things in common.) Of course, just where his money came from in the first place is another question. But by the time the establishment candidates realized that he and Cruz weren’t jokes, but serious contenders – in fact the front runners – it was all too late. Donald was smiling from sea to shining sea. Not that there’s really much to choose between the Republican candidates anyway as far as I can see. Paul Krugman summed it up beautifully in the New York Times. Writing off Ted Cruz, he compared the remaining two serious Republican candidates in last week's Op Ed piece Cranks on Top. It started:

The thing is, one of the two men who may still have a good chance of becoming the Republican nominee is a scary character. His notions on foreign policy seem to boil down to the belief that America can bully everyone into doing its bidding, and that engaging in diplomacy is a sign of weakness. His ideas on domestic policy are deeply ignorant and irresponsible, and would be disastrous if put into effect.

The other man, of course, has very peculiar hair.

You can read the full piece HERE. 

So what of the view from abroad? How will President Trump or President Clinton play out? I would say from the bit I’ve read that almost universally the rest of the world would prefer President Clinton. She’s been Secretary of State and she comes across as interested in other countries even if she hasn’t been able to make much diplomatic progress. (Who did?) Mostly, she’s pretty predictable. One knows what one’s getting and gets what one knows. 

The Donald is unpredictable. Will he really build a wall with Mexico? He says the length is negotiable – to a few feet - but the wall is a given. Does he really expect Mexico to pay for it? Or what? He’ll invade Mexico? As for China, they are manipulating currencies and have invented global warming to try to destroy American industries.  He does feel he can work with Russia on ISIS. Well, Putin has a thing or two in common with him. Maybe they can do business. Certainly there seems more than a touch of narcissism in the Russian leader too. Listen to what the Donald says. Maybe he doesn’t mean that stuff, but maybe he does. Because the stuff he says is ridiculous and impossible doesn't imply that he doesn't believe it.

One thing seems absolutely clear. The run of the mill politician has lost the confidence of people everywhere. For that reason alone, Hilary will have a run for her PACs' money.