In her recent New York Times article, Jasmine Sun listed some of the worries that most of us have with the increasing deployment of AI in sectors of the economy and the broader society. Chief among the concerns are mass worker displacements and the possibility of AI systems escaping human control and proceeding to cause mayhem.
According to Sun, who writes about AI and Silicon Valley culture, many people in the industry are themselves worried about the potential harmful effects of their creations. But she added this: “Many A.I. employees are ultimately motivated by visions of a beautiful future: a promised land where goods are cheap, diseases are cured, and abundant machine labor liberates humans to enjoy lives of infinite leisure.”
That sunny outlook on the part of AI employees should be a source of comfort. However, some caution is warranted. Technological advancements have improved our lot as humans in immeasurable ways and so we should embrace AI as much as possible. But what if abundant machine labor leads to the creation of “a permanent underclass,” as the title of Sun’s article suggests?
The fight between owners of capital and workers is as old as humanity itself. Sun says people have come to the realization that if machine labor becomes abundant, workers would likely lose whatever bargaining power they had previously. The question then is, what share of the economic pie would labor receive, if any, in that new environment? After all, if machines are doing all the work, would the owners of capital have any obligation to share any of their wealth with the human workers whose labor they are no longer employing?
The assumption now is that if we were to enter this new age in which human labor is no longer needed, governments would impose taxes on capital to raise sufficient revenues to take care of the people enjoying lives of infinite leisure. We think class warfare is bad now. We probably haven’t seen anything yet. Things could get a whole lot worse in a world where the previous suppliers of labor have zero bargaining power, a problem that could be compounded by an absence of labor champions in government. That potential is there because the politicians could be captured by the owners of capital—something we complain about a lot today.
I am not entirely sure that even if we were provided enough resources to sustain us, we would find a life of infinite leisure enjoyable anyway. Across the world today, people just don’t seem to get along with others. There is so much bitterness everywhere that we are probably better off having things to occupy us. Such mass idleness, as what AI might cause, would exacerbate the loneliness epidemic that we read and hear about regularly nowadays.
I have one personal reason in particular for not wanting a life of infinite leisure. I find it quite annoying that after a long day at the office, I have to carve out time in the evening for exercise. It is something I never had to do when I was growing up in Ghana. That was because I worked on my father’s farm and did a lot of chores at home. It was a two-for-one thing: I did productive work on the farm, and got my exercise in at the same time.
It doesn’t bother me too much when I walk or jog outside in the summer months these days. But being forced to exercise on the treadmill during winter seasons is something I find irritating. It always feels purposeless to me, but I have no other choice.
There are lots of opinions out there about the pros and cons of AI. Some people say that all the talk about mass displacement of workers is alarmism. I hope their assessment is correct. My own view is that the positives of AI are likely to outweigh whatever negatives come with the technology.
Whatever the case is, we should be a little careful what we wish for with respect to freeing ourselves from work to enjoy infinite leisure. The devil has a way of finding work for idle hands.