Microsoft is reportedly delighted with OpenAI’s ChatGPT, a natural-
language artificial-intelligence (AI) program capable of generating text that reads as if a human wrote it. Taking advantage of easy access to finance over the past decade, companies and venture-capital funds invested billions in an AI arms race, resulting in a technology that can now be used to replace humans across a wider range of tasks. This could be a disaster not only for workers, but also for consumers and even investors.
The problem for workers is obvious: There would be fewer jobs requiring strong communication skills, and thus fewer positions that pay well. Cleaners, drivers and some other manual workers would keep their jobs, but everyone else should be afraid. Consider customer service. Instead of hiring people to interact with customers, companies would increasingly rely on generative AIs like ChatGPT to placate angry callers with clever and soothing words. Fewer entry-level jobs would mean fewer opportunities to start a career — continuing a trend established by earlier digital technologies.
Illustration: Mountain People
Consumers would suffer, too. Chatbots might be fine for handling entirely routine questions, but it is not routine questions that generally lead people to call customer service. When there is a real issue — such as an airline grinding to a halt or a pipe bursting in your basement — you want to talk to a well-qualified, empathetic professional with the ability to marshal resources and organize timely solutions. You do not want to be put on hold for eight hours, but nor do you want to speak immediately to an eloquent, but ultimately useless chatbot.
Of course, in an ideal world, new companies offering better customer service would emerge and seize market share. However, in the real world, many barriers to entry make it difficult for new firms to expand quickly. You might love your local bakery or a friendly airline representative or a particular doctor, but think of what it takes to create a new grocery store chain, a new airline or a new hospital. Existing firms have big advantages, including important forms of market power that allow them to choose which available technologies to adopt and to use them however they want.
More fundamentally, new companies offering better products and services generally require new technologies, such as digital tools that can make workers more effective and help create better customized services for the company’s clientele. However, since AI investments are putting automation first, these kinds of tools are not even being created.
Investors in publicly traded companies would also lose out in the age of ChatGPT. These companies could be improving the services they offer to consumers by investing in new technologies to make their workforces more productive and capable of performing new tasks, and by providing plenty of training for upgrading employees’ skills — but they are not doing so. Many executives remain obsessed with a strategy that ultimately would come to be remembered as self-defeating: paring back employment and keeping wages as low as possible. Executives pursue these cuts because it is what the smart kids (analysts, consultants, finance professors, other executives) say they should do, and because Wall Street judges their performance relative to other companies that are also squeezing workers as hard as they can.
AI is also poised to amplify the deleterious social effects of private equity. Already, vast fortunes can be made by buying up companies, loading them with debt while going private, and then hollowing out their workforces — all while paying high dividends to the new owners. Now, ChatGPT and other AI technologies would make it even easier to squeeze workers as much as possible through workplace surveillance, tougher working conditions, zero-hours contracts and so forth.
These trends all have dire implications for Americans’ spending power — the engine of the US economy. However, 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 has had very different consequences in the past.
More than a century ago, Henry Ford revolutionized 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, as centralized electricity sources enabled machines to perform more tasks more efficiently. However, the reorganization of the factory that accompanied electrification also created new tasks for workers and thousands of new jobs with higher wages, bolstering shared prosperity. Ford led the way in demonstrating that creating human-complementary technology is good business.
Today, AI offers an opportunity to do likewise. AI-powered digital tools can be used to help nurses, teachers and customer-service representatives understand what they are dealing with and what would help improve outcomes for patients, students and consumers. The predictive power of algorithms could be harnessed to help people, rather than to replace them.
If AIs are used to offer recommendations for human consideration, the ability to use such recommendations wisely would be recognized as a valuable human skill. Other AI applications can facilitate better allocation of workers to tasks, or even create completely new markets (think of Airbnb or rideshare apps).
Unfortunately, these opportunities are being neglected, because most US tech leaders continue to spend heavily to develop software that can do what humans already do just fine. They know that they can cash out easily by selling their products to corporations that have developed tunnel vision. Everyone is focused on leveraging AI to cut labor costs, with little concern not only for the immediate customer experience, but also for the future of US spending power.
Ford understood that it made no sense to mass produce cars if the masses could not afford to buy them. Today’s corporate titans, by contrast, are using the new technologies in ways that would ruin our collective future.
Daron Acemoglu is a professor of economics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Simon Johnson, a former chief economist at the IMF, is a professor at MIT’s Sloan School of Management and a cochair of the COVID-19 Policy Alliance.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
The muting of the line “I’m from Taiwan” (我台灣來欸), sung in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), during a performance at the closing ceremony of the World Masters Games in New Taipei City on May 31 has sparked a public outcry. The lyric from the well-known song All Eyes on Me (世界都看見) — originally written and performed by Taiwanese hip-hop group Nine One One (玖壹壹) — was muted twice, while the subtitles on the screen showed an alternate line, “we come here together” (阮作伙來欸), which was not sung. The song, performed at the ceremony by a cheerleading group, was the theme
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised eyebrows recently when he declared the era of American unipolarity over. He described America’s unrivaled dominance of the international system as an anomaly that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Now, he observed, the United States was returning to a more multipolar world where there are great powers in different parts of the planet. He pointed to China and Russia, as well as “rogue states like Iran and North Korea” as examples of countries the United States must contend with. This all begs the question:
Liberals have wasted no time in pointing to Karol Nawrocki’s lack of qualifications for his new job as president of Poland. He has never previously held political office. He won by the narrowest of margins, with 50.9 percent of the vote. However, Nawrocki possesses the one qualification that many national populists value above all other: a taste for physical strength laced with violence. Nawrocki is a former boxer who still likes to go a few rounds. He is also such an enthusiastic soccer supporter that he reportedly got the logos of his two favorite teams — Chelsea and Lechia Gdansk —
RSS