In recent years, the debate about artificial intelligence (AI) has intensified significantly. The British government recently organized a high-level conference on this topic. High-ranking EU and US officials consider artificial intelligence among the priority topics for action. Prominent voices from Silicon Valley, from major companies, are participating in this debate. In Asia, AI is in the spotlight. At the annual meeting of Academia Europeae since last year, in which I participated, the topic of Professor Helga Novotna’s inaugural speech and other lectures was AI. The benefits of artificial intelligence are welcomed, but there are also concerns about the harmful effects of artificial intelligence, its potential to get out of control. Can AI be regulated without stifling innovation? Can artificial intelligence solve the mismatch between needs and resources in a sustainable way, bring abundance? This debate is all the more relevant given that severe adverse shocks in recent years have disrupted people’s lives, caused a “cost of living” crisis and affected political developments. The lines below repeat my text “Is the science of sadness returning?” (Hotnews, May 19, 2022)

and

Can we talk about the abundance of goods and services in society? The question should be evaluated in view of the fact that, according to the established understanding, economic science examines the dynamics of needs (individual and collective) in relation to available resources. Markets regulate the relationship between supply and demand for goods and services through “equilibrium prices” that are affected by imbalances that depend on economic cycles, shocks that disrupt supply chains, and policies that stimulate consumption in unsustainable ways. But “equilibrium prices” can hide large differences between incomes, purchasing power and wealth of individuals, in the distribution of economic/financial power in markets, with reflexes (through more or less obvious interest groups) in political life – which can also mean the capture of state decisions . Obviously, states of equilibrium can be “shaky”, fragile. From this was born a state policy aimed at ensuring “equal chances” in societies that value the criteria of morality and justice and that try to avoid and mitigate large-scale economic and social crises. Antimonopoly legislation originates from this concern, as does the system of separation of powers in the state (in democratic countries), rules to prevent flagrant abuses in economic and political life, including excessive financing of the economy. Not coincidentally, there is a debate about the need to make the economy work for as many citizens as possible (see also Robert Reich, Saving Capitalism for the Many, Not the Very Few, 2016; Martin Wolf, The Crisis of Democratic Capitalism, 2023). And there are imbalances between economies that are illustrated by different trade balances and that express gaps in competitiveness.

Economics is called the “science of sadness” (sad science) long ago. The term has its origins in the 19th century, with the controversial writings of Thomas Carlyle and Thomas Malthus on available resources in relation to population dynamics, a theme revived by the Club of Rome about half a century ago and the report Stern Review in 2007. And Nicolas Georgescu Rogen, a leading economist from Romania, analyzed the problem of the relationship between resources and the dynamics of the economy. Climate change has heightened concerns about the relationship between resources and human needs. The reservations about this terminology may be due to the feeling that it would be overly pessimistic, that it would be inappropriate to compare current scientific and technological progress, the development of artificial intelligence, with the industrial revolution of the 19th century; this century is very different from the modern world, which has lifted hundreds of millions of people outside of Europe and North America out of abject poverty. I mean here, in particular, Asia. In addition, the range of goods and services in today’s world is different from, say, more than 100 years ago (not to mention the quality).

On the other hand, feelings and aspirations, joys and worries have their roots in the real life of people, in their social, economic and cultural ties, in the way state authorities respond to basic social needs – the latter arise from specific life situations. At the same time, people use collective guidelines and individual preferences to express wishes and specific requests.

It should be noted that new technologies do not improve people’s lives in the same way, automatically. For example, smartphones (smartphones) may open access to information for many citizens, but they do not provide access to civilization with equal opportunities for all. In Africa, for example, more than 3/4 of the continent’s population use mobile phones, but economic progress is generally very limited, and poverty is widespread. In addition, the Covid pandemic and climate change, the latter seen as an existential threat, draw attention to the possibility of dystopian worlds. Martin Weitzman with his “catastrophe theorem” (A gloomy theorem, 2011), outlines a scenario in which we will not have the resources (technological capabilities) to avoid extreme environmental changes (as we must allocate more and more of the resources we have in the present to save future generations – a trade-off for most people very difficult to accept). With reference to the historian Carl Wittfogel, we talked about the specter of “hydraulic societies” if the ill effects of climate change are not effectively combated (Hotnews, March 18, 2021). The question of the distribution of resources between generations is difficult to consider and solve, and climate change exacerbates it. Such a finding should not lead to the conclusion that “those who can run away.” In public policy, decisions are made even under conditions of extreme uncertainty, based on estimates of costs and benefits, even with large approximations.

yl

Artificial intelligence, in addition to its undeniable advantages, is considered by many experts as an existential threat in the sense that it can surpass the cognitive and inventive abilities of humans. Hence, AI can dominate humans and threaten their existence. AI is also seen as a means of enhancing military capabilities (see also Steven Feldstein, “AI in War: Can Advanced Military Technologies Be Curbed Before It’s Too Late?”, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January 11, 2014). An analogy can be drawn here with nuclear energy, with the spread of atomic weapons. Therefore, more and more voices are calling for regulation of the use of AI. Whether this can be done in an increasingly fragmented, multipolar world with intense geopolitical rivalry is more than a legitimate question. Either way, it’s a must try. As it should be in the field of combating the pandemic.

The crisis in the field of health care, partial lockdowns during the pandemic have highlighted the possibility of many companies and government institutions to work with a significant reduction in the number of employees. The IMF recently noted that more than 40% of occupations (60% in economically developed countries) will be affected by artificial intelligence in the future, leading to massive job losses. Home work, digitization, new technologies in general, and the increasingly widespread use of artificial intelligence predict major changes in the activities of many companies, leaving their mark on the future structure of the labor market. This impact can be seen in the context of the large amount of losses due to the unrestricted globalization of recent decades. It is not by chance that there is a rethinking of globalization, regionalization of cross-border economic relations, strengthening of protectionist accents — which are strengthened by geopolitical considerations, military security.

Numerous layoffs will exacerbate social problems and structural unemployment. That is why some analysts consider the introduction of a guaranteed minimum wage as a means of avoiding an extreme level of social tension. Funding for a guaranteed minimum income could be achieved through a “robot tax” (as it is claimed), which would redistribute income from those who use robotics (and replace humans) to those who lose their jobs; the more automated a profitable business is, the more it will be taxed in absolute terms. Such ideas are understandable if we seek to avoid the situation of many desperate people, serious social anomalies. problem moral damage loses its meaning in such considerations. However, the question of “honorable” work as a sign of human dignity (I say honorable, because enslaving work is shameful, humiliating) remains in the air, as support for the ethos of education, self-respect and contribution to social cohesion. . They seem like big words, but they are not without meaning.

III

Will artificial intelligence (AI) change the logic of economic life in the sense of a predictable surplus of goods and services?

This question recalls the vision of John Maynard Keynes about a century ago, in which he predicted an era of prosperity “for our grandchildren” (“Economic possibilities for our grandchildren”, in “Essays in Persuasion”, London, 1930), based on constant technological progress. But this view has been questioned by many economists.

It is worth noting that behavioral economics (behavioral economics) came with imported nuances about how people make decisions – variables such as commitment, satisfaction and self-fulfillment, simple rules, emotions, empathy, loyalty, altruism, individual and group identities that are relevant to decision-making. But acquisitive character of a person (which determines Homo Oeconomicuswhich does not contradict Homo Faber) has not changed, in fact, also the nuances. In the same conditions, most people choose to have more rather than less, they often show selfishness; they are not like the Franciscan friars, even if there are ethical and moral accents in society. This is the reason why it is difficult for markets to change the logic, the rationality of economic activity (maximization of net income/profit under certain conditions), for markets to internalize externalities that they do not perceive easily, or are forced in one way or another to take into account (e.g. taxes of Pigou, designed to deter malicious activity). The sometimes insignificant value of “information goods” (Paul Mason, Postcapitalism: A Guide to the Future, 2015) cannot change the nature of competition and the consequences of economic inequality. In addition, people must eat and have access to drinking water.

Acquisitive character a person reveals specific features when identity, group aspects, and the desire for power intervene. Conflicts between people (groups of people, states), including military ones, can be interpreted through the prism of the desire to own/control resources that provide individual and group security, power. Law (the rule of law) must operate within states and in the international environment. International law is designed to regulate relations between states and, in this connection, protect peace. But we see what misfortunes happen in the world in which we live. Although it can be noted that the history of mankind is littered with misfortunes, big and small. But such an observation cannot console and is even cynical. _ Read the rest of the article on Contributors.ro