The AI Daily Brief: Artificial Intelligence News and Analysis - What Roles Should Government Play in AI?

Episode Date: January 6, 2024

A reading of two essays that explore this question with very different answers. https://www.newsweek.com/why-nationalizing-ai-bad-idea-opinion-1857495 https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/04/opinion/artificial-intelligence-truckers-writers.html Today's Sponsors: Listen to the chart-topping podcast 'web3 with a16z crypto' wherever you get your podcasts or here: https://link.chtbl.com/xz5kFVEK?sid=AIBreakdown  ABOUT THE AI BREAKDOWN The AI Breakdown helps you understand the most important news and discussions in AI.  Subscribe to The AI Breakdown newsletter: https://theaibreakdown.beehiiv.com/subscribe Subscribe to The AI Breakdown on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TheAIBreakdown Join the community: bit.ly/aibreakdown Learn more: http://breakdown.network/

Today on the AI Breakdown, we're reading two very different takes on the relationship of government to artificial intelligence. The AI breakdown is a daily podcast and video on the most important news and discussions in AI. Go to Breakdown.network for more information about our Discord, our newsletter, and our YouTube channel. Hello, friends. Welcome to the first weekend of 2024. And it being the weekend, it is time for a Longreeds episode. And today we have two very different pieces. They both, to some extent, deal with the relationship of government and the role of government more accurately in the artificial intelligence field, but come at it from pretty different

perspectives. The first piece is an opinion piece in Newsweek called Why Nationalizing AI is a Bad Idea. The piece is by Zoltan Istvan, who's the author of the transhumanist wager. Zoltan writes, Like so many in America, I watch astounded as generative artificial intelligence evolved at lightning speed in 2023, performing tasks that seemed unimaginable just a few years ago. Just last month, a survey found that nearly 40% of more than 900 companies were planning to cut jobs in 2024, in part because of AI. If robotics takes a giant leap in the next 12 months, as some suspect,

then the survey might end up being too conservative. Generative AI combined with humanoids, which many companies are racing to turn out, is a game changer. Construction jobs, physician jobs, police jobs, and many more will soon be at stake. Clearly, capitalism is facing a crisis. For years, I have advocated for a universal basic income as a way to transition society into the AI age. My method was by leasing out the trillions of dollars worth of empty U.S. federal land to big businesses and using some of the proceeds to pay for a basic income for every American. However, any method of a basic income will now help offset the losses of jobs AI will bring. But recently, chatter about something else is being thrown around in internet chat rooms,

in congressional halls and in arguments at holiday dinner tables, nationalizing AI. It's a bad idea. For starters, I don't want big government in the innovation business. It already has a hard enough time trying to keep people out of poverty. Right now, one in five kids in the U.S. is going to bed hungry or malnourished at night, and America's homeless problem is the worst it's been in my 50-year lifetime. After all the benefits capitalism has brought us in the world over the last century, we owe something to it.

And that thing we owe is to stay the course trusting it in free markets, which means letting innovators get their spoils. I agree it's not fair, U.S. billionaires hold over 50% of the wealth of America, but to take their companies, patents, and creations away to even the scales of justice is not the answer. If we should do anything with billionaires, it's high time to raise their taxes to help them contribute to a UBI. But the final and perhaps most important reason we should drop the idea of nationalizing AI is due to geopolitical reasons. We need our best and most innovative companies and inventors leading the AI revolution forward, so that China, Russia, and other potential adversaries don't get ahead of us.

Nearly 10 years ago, I discussed the concept of the AI imperative, drawing out why it was critical that the best AI remains in the hands of democracies and not autocracies or dictatorships. Should we ever need to go toe to toe with another country's AI, either on the battlefield or in hacking challenges, we better have the best AI capabilities on hand. Otherwise, another country may sabotage or even shut down our AIs with a virus or other software hacks. As someone who lives in the San Francisco Bay Area and has many tech friends in Silicon Valley, if we take away the incentive for our AI tech companies to innovate, then we'll be more like our international adversaries who have a history of stunting scientists and their research in the name of authoritarian

agendas. America has given its inventors and companies precious freedom and rewards to lead the way forward, and that's why this country for two centuries has borne many of the most important inventions for humanity. The ability to change the world and strike it rich at the same time are at the very core of the American dream. And while fewer and fewer Americans seem to be able to reach that dream, it's still the cornerstone of why we are one of the leading innovation nations in the world. Despite my strong feelings against nationalizing AI, I definitely think close relations and mandates between government and AI evolution should be taking place. Given the worries of some experts that AI might become self-aware someday and then dislike humans, strict observance of AI development

should be in place by outside monitoring forces and organizations. After all, we don't want to let Google, Microsoft, OpenAI, and other companies just run free with technology that's dramatically transforming the world. AI represents one of the most significant strides in human invention and innovation in our lifetimes. It has not only the ability to forever alter the marketplace, the job market, and the way we live our lives, but also the potential to help solve thorny issues like climate change, aging, and disease using its ever-growing computational and reasoning power. But we don't want to stifle the very people that brought us this power by nationalizing their creation. We want to incentivize them to keep creating while making sure our country is safe. We can do both without

chaining down our innovators. All right, so back to NLW here. The reason that I wanted to share the piece is not because I think it's going to win a debate award or anything like that, but because I think it's notable that the discussion of AI nationalization has made it to the opinion pages of Newsweek. Newsweek at this point is about as mainstream an outlet as you can imagine. It's basically USA Today but in magazine form. And so the things that they determine are valuable enough and interesting enough to their readership to print is an interesting indication of where the conversation is. Now, I haven't seen a lot of practical conversation around the idea of nationalizing AI, but what is for sure is that AI is going to provoke some different renegotiation

of the relationship between big tech and government. quickly a brief word from today's sponsor. As a listener of this show, I suspect you like to stay up to date on all things AI and tech, which is why you have to check out the chart-topping podcast Web3 with A16Z crypto. Produced by venture firm Andresen Horowitz, Web3 with A16Z is the perfect companion podcast to the AI breakdown. Web3 with A16Z crypto is your definitive resource for the future of the internet. Whether you're interested in the convergence of AI and crypto or simply curious about what's next. If you need a place to start, they recently released an excellent episode with Stanford

Cryptography Professor Dan Boney and former Google X engineer Ali Yaya in conversation with host Sonal Choxi about the intersection of AI and crypto. From fighting deepfakes and proving humanity to large language models like ChatGBT, BT, they cover it all. I highly recommend checking it out, especially if you'd like to learn more about how AI and crypto will impact our everyday lives. Beyond Crypto and AI, this show is for creators seeking more ways to truly own their work, for business leaders trying to prepare for the future today, and for innovators exploring

trending tech topics. Don't miss out. Follow Web3 with A16Z crypto on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your favorite listening app. Which brings us to our second piece, this time by Congressman Roe Kana, who writes in the New York Times an essay called Democrats must not repeat the mistakes of globalization. And for those not familiar with Ro Kana, I do want to caveat this before we read it, by making clear that he is one of the most pro-technology Democrats that the party has. Roe writes, last September, tech's biggest names trekked to Capitol Hill for a forum on artificial intelligence. In a meeting closed to journalists, executives briefed nearly two-thirds of the Senate on the

future of AI. A few respected labor and civic leaders were present, but the tech titans dominated the headlines. There's an assumption in Silicon Valley that the first trillionaire may well be an AI entrepreneur, so tech leaders were eager to share their thoughts on some rules the road. They warned of killer robots and the Terminator scenario, of misinformation and fake videos, but gave short shrift to broader issues of economic fairness and wealth disparity that are of more urgent concern to most Americans. Watching Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, and Sam Altman lead a confab on the ethical principles and regulations that should guide AI development was reminiscent of Davos conferences in the 1990s and early 2000s. You remember the story that those Davos

conferences broadcast to the world. Everyone will be able to get a knowledge job. Consumer goods will become cheaper. Globalization coupled with the internet will lead to prosperity for everyone. Well, it didn't quite work out that way. What these Davos participants missed was how unfettered globalization hollowed out the working class here at home. We are all familiar with the consequences now. Shuttered factories and rural communities that never saw the promised jobs materialize. As the American dream slipped away from them, many people developed deep and justified resentment. They saw the obscene concentration of wealth and opportunity in districts like mine in the heart of Silicon Valley. The evangelists for the new economy were prescient about the wealth generation

that globalization in the internet would unleash, but wrong that it would increase economic opportunities for all Americans. Like globalization, AI will undoubtedly bring benefits, tremendous benefits to our economy, with higher productivity, personalized medicine and education, and more efficient energy use. Generative AI has the potential to help those with fewer resources or experience quickly learn and develop new skills. The real challenge, though, is how to center the dignity and economic security of working-class Americans during the changes to come. And unlike the industrial revolution, which spanned half a century at least, the AI revolution is unfolding at lightning speed. Today, the Democratic Party is at a crossroads, as it was in the 1990s, when the dominant wing in

the party argued for prioritizing private sector growth and letting the chips fall where they may. The criticism of this approach offered around that time by Senator Paul Wellstone, Senator Russ Feingold, and Representative Bernie Sanders, as he was then, that the offshoring globalization debacle was not helping the working class and was in fact hurting it, was largely ignored. When it comes to AI, the fault lines for the Democratic Party similarly run between business and labor, between donors and grassroots activists, and between those concerned foremost with our global competitiveness, and those concerned with the economic well-being of the working class. The tension between business and labor became clear in the battle over proposed legislation in California,

AB316, which divided me and many California legislators from Governor Gavin Newsom. The bill would have required, at least for five years, a human driver on board self-driving trucks weigh more than 10,000 pounds, that are transporting goods or passengers. Tech companies argue that replacing human drivers with AI is feasible, will reduce labor costs, and will therefore make it cheaper to transport goods and services. They lobbied heavily against the bill. The bill nonetheless passed overwhelmingly, with support for more than 80% of the California legislature and more than 70% of California voters. Unfortunately, Mr. Newsom sided with business advocates in September and vetoed the bill. I supported AB316 because drivers say it's

currently an unnecessary risk to have large trucks on public roads without a human on board. This is especially true if there is extreme weather, hazardous conditions, or heavy cargo on board. No one understands the safety risks at play here better than the drivers themselves. And it's both foolish and insulting to suggest they would make up such concerns to keep jobs that do not add value. We wouldn't trust planes to fly without pilots, even with the most sophisticated and well-tested autopilot systems, and we shouldn't trust large trucks to drive without operators. It's not just the AI concerns of truck drivers that are causing divides in the Democratic Coalition. Last summer, some California politicians were hesitant to support the

Writers Guild of America strike publicly. Given Hollywood's cultural importance and fundraising power, I was proud to join the picket line. As in the case of self-driving trucks, the issue comes down to giving workers a say. Writers were intrigued by the ways AI could help as a research tool and unlock new potential for movies and TV, but were concerned that studios might rush to use AI to write cookie-cutter scripts and sacrifice imagination and creativity on the altar of profits. It's better for writers, not executives, to slowly discover the best uses of AI in entertainment. In their new contract with the studios, the writers won important AI guardrails concerning credits and compensation, protections that can evolve over time. Even though writer's jobs are very different from truck

driver's jobs, labor solidarity is one of the few countervailing forces that can blunt the dehumanization of work, motivated by short-term profit maximization in a world where AI is capable of suddenly disrupting both blue and white-collar work. That said, workers need more than just a voice in guardrails. They should also share in company profits, whether they are working for a trucking company, a production studio, or a car manufacturer. Like many chief executives, workers should receive compensation based on profits in the company's performance, not solely hours worked. It's the only way workers can fully thrive as AI increases America's productive capacity. Of course, there are beltway skeptics of pro-labor policies. What about the threat that leading AI companies will

flee to China? If we pay workers here more, they ask. Don't raise worker bonuses or have them share in the profits, or we'll lose the global race, they warn. We cave to that blackmail in the 1990s and 2000s and look where it has landed us. Ordinary Americans, are tired of hearing about abstract notions of our global competitiveness, while their pay doesn't keep up and their costs of living rise. There are already reports that AI could displace tens of thousands of jobs this year at big companies, potentially causing damage to their culture and their local communities, and starting a concerning trend.

A workforce committee at each company should weigh in on how AI could help employees better do their existing jobs, whether new hiring should slow down, and what new credentialing or roles for affected employees could look like before restructuring and letting people go. This is not to dismiss the need for dynamism, fluidity, and flexibility, in our markets. American companies must continue to adopt cutting-edge technology. These technologies can unleash a manufacturing revolution here at home, which America should celebrate, in part because jobs in the trade that require craftsmanship appear less likely to be eliminated. It's a development

that can reverse the decline of new American factories. Even so, federal policy should require public companies to have active worker participation when making decisions on how AI will change jobs that have functions that might be automated and provide tax incentives to companies that give workers a direct stake in their profits. Here's the balance we need to strike. We should encourage disruptive innovation at our universities, startups, and even large companies, but prioritize the perspective and earnings of workers in the adoption of any such technology that develops. This is a vision for democratic innovation that will still allow us to compete economically and militarily, but not at all, human costs. Democratic innovation recognizes that the need

for social cohesion may be the ultimate determiner of the success of the American experiment and American leadership. The Democratic Party cannot claim to be the party of the working class, we allow AI to erode the earnings and security of the working class. The party can be forgiven once for the mistake of a betting globalization to run amok, just not twice. Our technologies are meant to complement and enhance human initiative, not subordinate or exploit it. We must push for workers to have a decision-making role in how and when to adopt technologies,

and we must insist on workers profiting from the implementation of these technologies. Our generational task is to ensure that AI is a tool for lessening the vast disparities of wealth and opportunity that plague us, not exacerbating them. All right, back to NLW here again. So the connection point between these two articles, like I said, is that they're both in some way or another about the relationship between technology and the government and what the government's role should be

in shaping how technology comes into the world. Hold aside the specific policies that Rokana is suggesting here. What he is acknowledging is that AI is every bit as powerful an economy and world-shaping force as globalization, and that as such, it requires a renegotiation of the fundamental social contract that shapes life in American society. My starting position is that that needs to be the level of the stakes that we are engaging with when we're engaging with these questions of AI.

And even if people are bringing very different perspectives on what the new social contracts should look like, we shouldn't be debating about whether the significance is on that scale of magnitude. It just is. Now, within that framework, there are fierce debates to be had. There are novel policies to be proposed and torn down and proposed again in different forms. ideas we haven't thought of yet that could shape the way the world works in the years to come. But what I'm encouraged by is that here in the first few days of 2024, just a year after these technologies came onto the scene in a way that broke into consumer consciousness,

or at least having the discussion on the level that it deserves. Until next time, peace.