I was talking with a friend recently about AI. Neither of us like what it does to the environment and its potential to be harmful to humanity and not just because of what it does to the environment and how 90% of people will be unemployed through it. But we take very different views on what the future might be.
I am of the view AI has to be stopped. She is of the view that nothing can stop it and we should ask AI how to help the environment. That maybe the data centres should be placed in space or on the moon (where there is no water to act as a cooling system) I’m not even going to go into here why we should be destroying the environment of space! The point I want to make here is, do we give in to something because it’s too difficult? Or do we make a stand? Because if we don’t make a stand…where does it end?
Now, I am not opposed to progress. The comparison was given to me of farming. How it used to be intensive labour to plough a field, taking days on end, but now it can be done by one man, a machine, GPS and a few hours. There are pros and cons to both of these. The intensive labour was not well remunerated and much of the need for innovation was because people were not prepared to do it anymore. It’s incredibly hard work and once people were able to travel to different areas for work with the advent of public transport and cars and universal education, the world opened up to people more giving them far more opportunities than their ancestors. One example of innovation is the robotic picking of berries near where I live because local people are not prepared to do the back-breaking work for the pay (which is commensurate to what people will pay for the finished product), and post-Brexit there were no European workers prepared to do the work for the summer. Necessity drove innovation. In the medieval period, as a result of the Black Death, the middle classes began to rise because labourers and workers were in much shorter supply and demand was still high – an early form of capitalism that eventually killed feudalism. And the rise of the middle classes meant people were not prepared to be farm labourers anymore so you got the rise of middle class lawyers and social movement. Necessity at that time drove social innovations.
I’m not sure we should mention here that the sheer loneliness now suffered by farmers largely working alone for hours on end has led to a sharp increase in suicide rates…or should we? Should we point out that not all innovations consider the long-term implications of their introduction onto humanity?
The Industrial Revolution without a doubt has had a negative impact on the environment. That cannot be disputed. With the fossil fuels required in ever increasing quantities to fuel the factories then the steam engines then the automotive engines…one innovation created more. It was the usual thing, once the concept had been proven people believed that it could be taken that one step further. And another step further. And another until you go from the Wright brothers to stealth bombers in a century. What increased as a result was consumerism and greed and this is what has really destroyed the environment.
The factory owners wanted their goods produced at the lowest possible cost to increase their wallet size. And that continues to this day with child labour, illegal immigrant labour, slavery still and basically a contempt for human life in the pursuit of profit. Apparently, it costs around US$100 to produce a Dior handbag that sells for around US$3-4k. Those are the production costs using sweat shop labour and materials. It does not take into account the swanky shops in the most expensive real estate areas which undoubtedly cost a fortune to run though I doubt their staff earn a fortune. But someone does.
And so it is with AI. The billionaire tech bros don’t want to pay a workforce when they could trouser the money themselves. AI doesn’t ask for payment. They can build their data centres with tax advantages, employ no one and pass on a huge amount of the running costs to the local community through increased energy and water costs. It’s a no-brainer win-win for them. What does it matter to them the cost to the environment? They’re okay, they can afford to look after themselves. Or move to Mars if it gets too bad (insert eye roll here). Or commandeer the moon apparently, though the Russians and Chinese are looking to do the same as are India and Europe likely which will probably lead to a war. Is someone trying to recreate the 1970s James Bond film, Moonraker here? Can anyone see how utterly ridiculous this is?
30,000 people were laid off from Oracle this year. Thousands from Google last year. People who were told to focus their careers in the digital sphere because it was the future are now out of jobs with their sector contracting at a rate of knots. And AI is projected to put 90% of us out of work. So, if we are all out of work I wonder…how do we afford to pay for the products the billionaires are producing? Who pays the taxes to pay for the benefits/welfare systems? The healthcare? Who affords those ‘aspirational’ US$3-4k handbags? Just the wealthy? Has anyone heard about what’s happening in London with the wealthy being divested of the trappings of their wealth by modern day pickpockets? What happens, does AI protect them from that? Or is the boom industry in bodyguards? Or do they become robotic given a robot won a half marathon the other day by a significant margin? Thieves can’t outrun a robot. And was Robocop fiction or a portent of the future? And are those handbags made by robots because no one complains about the conditions they are kept in? No nuisance journalists poking their noses where it isn’t wanted.
I’m not sure this is even a fictional dystopian future. Unless. Unless we take a stand. Like those communities in the US who are banding together and saying ‘no’ to the data centres. Like the communities who are no longer purchasing through Amazon anymore but in local producers (who Amazon are, by the way, trying to take over so they look more local). The people who refuse to buy from Starbucks who have reported a ‘loss’ on a 6% increase in business because they’ve had to pay all their money to the head office for licensing fees etc. so they pay no tax in the UK. Whilst receiving tax credits. You can’t make it up. The communities who are turning their backs on the supermarkets because of the vast profits they are making in a cost of living crisis – if it’s more expensive for them to buy, too, how are they making such profits?! Those communities are turning to local butchers, local farm shops where the last mile is practically from farm to shop. The supermarkets who are sacking long-term, loyal employees who are sick and tired of probably being berated for not turning a large enough surplus in their stores whilst watching shoplifters brazenly walk out with bags of food and so they apprehend them. And get sacked for it. The supermarkets who accuse the police of not doing anything but the police reminding them – give us your CCTV footage and we will stop it.
We need to start saying ‘no’. We have the power, we have the voice, and we have the numbers. We have alternative ways of spending our money while we still have it. We can create alternative ways of casting our votes if the political system isn’t on our side. We are the people. Our politicians work for us, the many. Not the billionaire few. WE pay their wages because cumulatively, while we are still employed of course, we likely pay more than the tax-evading wealthy. Why should we just sit back and say we can do nothing? If we adopt that attitude that is exactly what happens. I am not pro-union in the modern times, but I am a great believer in why they were originally established. To stop the factory workers literally killing their employees with the conditions they were working in and the money they were (not) being paid. And, if I’m honest, there are some aspects even of modern unionism I can’t disagree with. Greed infiltrates all things, unfortunately, and that is the thing I disagree with the most.
I am not going to stop speaking out about this. I do it all over my private social media, and I will continue to do so. I don’t use AI for my website, to write emails (it takes half a bottle of water to write a small email by AI and we send billions a day just in the UK), to design anything for me. Because I have my own brain. I don’t care if it takes a little longer. And I hate that if I Google something, I get an AI response. So, I’m going to use other search engines. I don’t believe there is ethical AI because it is a destroyer of the environment simply by existing. So, I am not going to stop speaking out. I am not going to roll over the way they want us to. I am not going to be fatalistic about this. There IS something we can do and it’s time we started.
I hope some of you are with me.
Louisa Simpson 