The AI Daily Brief: Artificial Intelligence News and Analysis - The AI Automation Blues [Featuring NotebookLM]

Episode Date: October 7, 2024

NLW does a Long Reads episode featuring a cameo from Google's NotebookLM. Discussion inspired by and featuring a section of https://kyla.substack.com/p/the-biggest-man-made-disaster-ever Concerned about being spied on? Tired of censored responses? AI Daily Brief listeners receive a 20% discount on Venice Pro. Visit ⁠⁠⁠https://venice.ai/nlw⁠⁠⁠ and enter the discount code NLWDAILYBRIEF. The AI Daily Brief helps you understand the most important news and discussions in AI. Subscribe to the podcast version of The AI Daily Brief wherever you listen: https://pod.link/1680633614 Subscribe to the newsletter: https://aidailybrief.beehiiv.com/ Join our Discord: https://bit.ly/aibreakdown

Today on the AI Daily Brief, a discussion around the democracy of automation and the biggest man-made disaster ever. The AI Daily Brief is a daily podcast and video about the most important news and discussions in AI. To join the conversation, follow the Discord link in our show notes. Hello, friends, happy weekend. It being the weekend, it is, of course, a long-reads episode, and today we're doing something a little bit different. You probably have seen, if you haven't played with it yourself, someone talking about Google's Notebook L.M. Importantly, Notebook LM has been around for a while. However, they have a new feature, which is more recent, where it can take any big document or

YouTube video and turn it into an audio podcast with two hosts talking to each other. It's a really powerful and very cool tool, one that I think is going to do nothing but get more powerful, the more fine-grained controls they give people over it. But I thought it would be fun today. Instead of just doing my normal full read of a piece, actually throw a piece and then. and feed it into Google's Notebook LM and have it create its own podcast about it. So the piece that I slash it is reading or referencing is by the most excellent Kyla Scanlan. You've probably seen Kyla talk about economics on TikTok or Instagram or Twitter,

and she wrote a piece called the biggest man-made disaster ever, the Longshoreman Strike and the Democracy of Automation. It is, of course, about the Longshoreman Strike, which at this point has been resolved, it seems, but it's really about this larger idea of automation. And so what I'm going to do now is I'm going to play you the summary podcast that was created just by Google reading Kyla's piece. And then we'll come back and discuss it a little bit. All right. So we're diving into this longshoreman strike.

And, you know, at first glance, it might seem like just another labor dispute. But it's actually a much bigger deal than that. It really is. And it's not just the number of workers or even the ports involved, though. Yeah. We are talking 36 ports here from Maine all the way down to Texas. It completely shut down. Yeah, and that's what like billions of dollars of goods every single day are just stuck.

Exactly. It's having this massive ripple effect throughout the entire economy. One of the sources we looked at put it in a way that really stuck with me, they said, imagine by week two of this strike, car dealerships are literally empty because the new cars are stuck on container ships sitting out there in the harbor. And it's not just cars, right? I mean, think about all the stuff we rely on every day, clothes, electronics, you name it. Absolutely. And that's what makes this strike such a perfect example. of the anxieties people have about automation. You know, it's like this issue that's been simmering in the background and now it's boiling over onto the national stage. Yeah. And of course, we can't talk about the strike without talking about the ILA, the international Longshoremen's Association and their demands.

I mean, that's 77% wage increase that they're asking for. That's definitely eye catching. Sure, it grabs headlines. But the real sticking point here, and this is where it gets really interesting, is the automation ban they're pushing for. Okay. So to understand that we need some context, right? Like, how did we even get here? Exactly. Well, to grasp the significance of what's happening now, we need to rewind a bit. Go back to the 1970s with the introduction of containerization. You remember that whole thing? Vaguely. It was about like standardizing the way goods are shipped, right? Yeah, basically they created this system of using these huge standardized containers to load and unload ships. And it seemed revolutionary at the time. And more efficient, I'm guessing. Way more efficient. But it also led to job losses on the docks. And, you know, who wasn't through all the,

about that, the ILA. They fought tooth and nail against containerization. So is that basically what we're seeing now with the strike history repeating itself? Like, is automation just the new containerization? Well, history rarely repeats itself exactly, but it often rhymes. And this situation definitely has some echoes of the past. And yeah, in a way you could say automation is the new containerization. It's a technological advancement that promises to revolutionize the shipping industry. But it also comes with the potential to displace a lot of workers. And that's what makes the strike so significant. because it's not just about what's happening on the docks.

It's about this bigger question of how do we handle these rapid technological changes in a way that benefits everyone. Exactly. And to answer that question, we need to dig deeper into what automation on the docks actually looks like and what's at stake for the workers who are on the front lines of this technological shift. Okay, so let's talk about this automation. What are we actually talking about here when we say automation on the docks? Is it like robots walking around unloading ships? It's actually not that far off. Think about those massive cranes that move the containers on and off ships. Imagine those operating autonomously controlled by computers instead of humans. Instead of those big trucks, they used to move containers around the port.

Self-driving vehicles following pre-programmed routes. So it's like taking the human element out of the equation and making it this super efficient well-oiled machine. Exactly. Right. And from a purely logistical standpoint, it makes sense. sense, right? You eliminate human error, you can operate 24-7. That's all about maximizing efficiency and speed. I get it. But on the flip side, we've got these workers, these longshoremen, many of whom have been doing this job for decades, it's got to be pretty unnerving to see your livelihood

potentially replaced by a machine. Absolutely. And I think it's important to acknowledge the very real fear and anger that a lot of these workers are feeling. And the ILA president, he hasn't exactly mince words about this whole thing. Remember that quote? We talked about, I'll cripple you. You have no idea what that means. That's a pretty clear indication of how high the stakes are. Yeah, and it's not like this is some abstract future threat either. One of the sources we looked at mentioned that 20,250 West Coast port jobs have already been lost to automation. That's right, and those are just the initial numbers. It's estimated that this number could skyrocket as automation becomes even more widespread. So we're talking about a lot

of people potentially losing their jobs? What kinds of jobs are we talking about specifically? Well, it's not just the crane operators, though. Those are definitely some of the most visible roles that could be affected. We're also talking about the folks who direct traffic on the docs who inspect and secure the containers, even some of the administrative and logistical tasks. Those could all be automated to some extent. So then we get to this whole question of retraining, right? Like if these jobs are going to be automated, what happens to the people who are currently doing them. Yes, exactly. It's one thing to say, oh, we'll just retrain them, but it's a whole other challenge to actually implement those retraining programs effectively. Right, because you have to consider the cost, the logistics finding programs that actually align with the skills that are in demand. It's not simple. It's definitely not, and it's not always successful either. We were looking at some examples from other industries like manufacturing, for instance, when automations started replacing factory jobs. Some companies invested heavily in training programs. teaching employees how to operate, maintain, even repair those new automated systems.

So taking someone who used to work on an assembly line and giving them the skills to be a robotics technician or something. Exactly. It's about bridging that gap between the old way of doing things and the new technological landscape. Okay, so bringing this back to the docks. Could a similar approach work for longshoremen? Like, could these retraining programs be the answer? Potentially. Yeah. But it would require a massive commitment not just from the shipping companies, but also from the government and from training institutions to really make it work.

Because right now it feels like there's this disconnect. The shipping companies represented by the USMX are all about efficiency and their bottom line. And it's hard to argue with their logic from a purely business perspective. Right. They're saying, look, automation equals efficiency. Efficiency equals higher profits and a stronger competitive edge. And they have a point. The global shipping industry is incredibly competitive. and U.S. ports have actually been falling behind in terms of efficiency.

Yeah, one of the things that jumped out at me was that fact that the top 10 shipping lines control something like 90% of the market share. That's huge. It is. It's a highly concentrated industry, which means those companies have a lot of power and influence. Which brings us back to this question of who benefits from all this automation, right? If profits do go up as expected, will those gains be shared with their workers who are being displaced? Exactly. And that's the million dollar question. How do we ensure that the benefits of these technological advancements are shared more broadly? How do we create a future where everyone benefits, not just a select few?

So it seems like we're kind of back to this central tension, right? This push and pull between embracing new technology and making sure that people don't get left behind in the process. And that's what makes looking back at the whole containerization thing so interesting. The ILA, they couldn't just stop progress. Yeah. They couldn't turn back the clock. Yeah. But they did use their power to negotiate for their members to make.

sure they weren't just thrown overboard. So they found a way to adapt to say, okay, we get it, the world is changing, but here's how we're going to make sure that workers are protected. Exactly. They fought for things like retraining programs, early retirement packages, even funds to support workers who were displaced by the new technology. It wasn't perfect by any means, but it shows that there are ways to navigate these transitions. Which brings us to today and the argument that U.S. ports are actually lagging behind globally when it comes to efficiency. One of the things we read said that places like Los Angeles and Long Beach are near the bottom of the list, and a lot of that has to do with our lack of automation. That's something that USMX has been

emphasizing. They're basically saying, look, we need to automate to stay competitive in this global market. It's not just about profits. It's about survival. But then how do we balance that with everything else we've been talking about, with making sure that workers aren't left high and dry when the robots take over? Right. And that's where I think we need to move beyond this simplistic framing of workers versus progress. It doesn't have to be a zero-sum game. There are models out there that could potentially bridge this gap. Okay, so give me some examples. What kind of models are we talking about here? Well, one idea that's been floated is profit sharing. The thinking is, if automation does lead to those increased profits that the shipping companies are predicting,

why not share a portion of those gains with the workers? It could help offset any job losses and give them a direct stake in the success of the technology. So it's like everyone's in it together. If the robots make us more money, everyone benefits. Exactly. And then there's the idea of worker-owned cooperatives. Imagine a future where the dock workers themselves have ownership in the automated systems being implemented. Interesting.

So instead of just being employees, they become worker owners. Right. It's about democratizing these technological advancements, giving the people who are most impacted by them a say in how it all unfolds. You know, we started this whole conversation. conversation by talking about this longshoreman strike and whether or not you should be worried about your Amazon packages arriving on time. And I think it's a testament to how important this issue is that we've ended up in a place where we're talking about things like profit sharing and worker cooperatives.

It's about rethinking the very foundations of our economy. Absolutely. This isn't just some isolated labor dispute happening on the docs. This is about the future of work itself and how we as a society are going to grapple with these rapid technological changes that are already transforming our lives. It really is. Yeah. And I think the key takeaway here is that we have a choice. We can either let these changes happen to us or we can take an active role in shaping the future we want to see. A future where technology benefits everyone, not just a select few.

And with that thought, we'll leave you our listener to ponder that very question. What is a future where technology works for everyone actually look like? And what role will you play in making that vision a reality? Today's episode is brought to you by Venice. Venice is a private, uncensored generative AI app. It accesses open source models to enable text, image, and code generation without the fear of being spied on or having your data exploited. Discuss anything with Venice without concern about it being monitored, sold, or given to advertisers and governments. Venice is different because your conversations and creations are kept securely within the browser, never stored or accessible by Venice.

Unlike other AI apps, Venice won't tell you what's okay to say or not. Venice won't patronize you. It simply provides direct access to machine intelligence, no topics are off limits, no ideas, or taboo. With Venice, you're in control of the AI as you should be. Pro subscriptions are available for $49 a year or $8 per month. AI Daily Brief listeners receive a 20% discount on Venice Pro. Visit venice.aI slash NLW and enter the discount code NLW Daily Brief. That's NLW Daily Brief, all one word.

Today's episode is brought to you by Superintelligent, which is of course our point. platform that helps you learn how to use AI tools and perhaps even more importantly, gives you ideas on the best use cases that are actually going to help you achieve, whatever it is you want to achieve. To recognize the end of summer and back to school slash back to work, we are running our best promotion ever when you sign up for super intelligent using code so back, your first month will be 100% free. The platform features over 600 fun, highly practical AI tutorials that get you using AI fast and with an eye to actually transforming how you get things done. We've just launched Super

for Teams, so if you have a group of people at your company that want to figure out how to use AI together, I highly suggest you check it out. But for those of you who are using Super intelligent as an individual, once again, if you sign up for Superintelligent between now and the end of the month using code so back, you will get your first month 100% free. Go to B-Supert.a-I and check it out today. All right, so back to NLW here. Pretty powerful, right? Holding aside the specific context of this piece,

I tend to think that what this technology is going to do is not going to be to replace podcasts, and I don't think that's just me being optimistic. I think instead what it's going to do is give people a totally different way to consume any information they want. I think it's going to change how people study, how they learn on the job,

because all of a sudden, anything that is a big, long, time-consuming document can be turned into audits, which can be sped up. I can't read any faster than I can read, but I can listen much faster than normal people listen. Anyways, we'll have a whole different discussion about Notebook L.M. Like I said, I wanted to include that as a fun aspect of this. But in terms of Kyla's piece itself, I wanted to come to the end of her essay, where she's talking specifically about automation and societal impact. Kyla writes, this is not the first time there have been strikes against automation

and it won't be the last. Bloomberg had some very thoughtful paragraphs on automation in the push and pull. She then quotes Bloomberg. who said, similar to the U.S. auto workers who went on strike last year and to the Hollywood actors and writers who picketed before that, the nation's longshoremen are keen not only to improve their wages, but to protect their jobs from machines that can perform a growing number of tasks without human intervention. Meanwhile, employers at the ports view increased automation is necessary to their competitiveness and ultimate survival. The push pull of technology raises deep questions about the timeframes each side is operating on. Workers concerned about job

security will need to balance the near-term threats with the longer-term risks, and employers that claim they want to invest in automation for the sake of being competitive in the long run, will need to decide how long they're willing to stay shut down because of it. So which is the bigger threat in the end for port workers, robots that can scan trucks, stack containers and transport goods, or a reflexive resistance to using them? Back to Kyla, she writes, people want safety. My boyfriend doesn't use much technology at all. He doesn't have social media and barely uses his phone. And it's because he doesn't like what all the tech does to us. He invests in vinyl and steel bikes because that technology still works.

And efficient technology doesn't mean it will last long. He isn't alone in thinking this. Blood in the machines talks about what happened 200 years ago when the Luddites rose up against automated machines. They wanted existing protections to be enforced in respect for the worker. Brian Merchant, the author, writes, The biggest reason that the last 200 years have seen a series of conflicts between the employers who deploy technology and workers forced to navigate that technology is that

we are still subject to what is ultimately a profoundly undemocratic means of developing, introducing, and integrating technology into society. Back to Kyla, she writes, and this is where the meat of this conversation is at for this piece. How do we talk about automating society? It's all fine and grand and good for the tech people to talk about people on tech podcasts, tech listeners, but we need a plan for what automation will do and how we will care for the workers impacted. Now, Kyla also goes on to have a bunch of other ideas and discussions around approaches to how people might be involved in automation. Some of that you heard summarized in the Google Notebook L.M piece as well. But I think the most important point here

is less the solutions and more the fact that this is going to be a quintessential political and societal conversation that we have to have. I am firmly in the camp that in the long run, the rise of AI will create incredible economic opportunity because I think that the natural tendency for humanity is to just create and consume more. And so a technology which enables much more creation will lead ultimately to just more consumption. I do not think that we'll get stuck at the phase where companies get really excited about doing the same with less. I think the winning companies in this new future will be the companies that do more with the same, or even way more with more. It is ultimately growth, not stagnation, that keeps society evolving. At the same time, there is going to be

a tremendously difficult period where skills that have been honed over the course of decades are just not nearly as relevant that they were before. We've seen this happen, but the scale at which it might happen, the breadth of different job types to which it might happen, which, by the way, are not just blue-collar, but in fact more likely to be white-collar jobs at the beginning, this has the potential to create massive social upheaval. And since some artificial stopping or pausing of technology is a completely unrealistic answer, it basically forces us to go back to the policy and democratic well to figure out how we're going to address this. The stakes of this conversation are a complete reimagining of the social contract.

Nothing less. Each of these strikes provides a moment to start thinking about it, but that's really where the discussion needs to go. Anyways, I'm glad that it appears that this strike has been resolved for now. Could have been very, very disruptive. Big ups to Kyla, as always, for her great content. And kudos to the Google team for a really awesome notebook L.M product, which we, of course, will experiment with more here on the show.

For now, though, that is going to do it for today's AI Daily Brief. Until next time, peace.