D. Acemoglu. Are we ready for the mass destruction of AI?

The Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter popularized the argument that new innovations constantly replace the previously dominant technologies and overthrow the old behemoths of industry. Many sociologists rely on the idea of ​​its cross-destruction, ignoring the process of innovation and its wider significance.

In economics, J. Schumpeter’s ideas formed the basis of theories of economic growth, the product cycle and international trade. However, two related events in the last few decades will put the concept of destruction on an even higher pedestal. The first in 1997 by Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen. The published book The Innovator’s Dilemma, which presented the idea of ​​disruptive innovation, easily earned the title. Disruptive innovations occur when new companies apply such business models, which the old-timers of the market have labeled as unattractive because they will be attractive only to the lower price market segments.

The second event was the rise of Silicon Valley, where technology entrepreneurs have clearly pursued a disruptive strategy from the start. Google will try to destroy the Internet search business, and Amazon will destroy the book trade business, after which most of the other retail sectors will be destroyed. Then came Facebook with its move fast and destroy everything mantra. Social media has changed our social relationships and communication in one go, and at the same time, it has led to cross-border destruction and disintegration.

Now that the hopes for artificial intelligence (AI) are surpassing even the hopes cherished in the early days of Facebook, it is useful for us to reevaluate these ideas. History shows that relentless approach to border destruction leads to economic stagnation. However, it is not necessary to increase destruction. We should consider it as a cost that can sometimes be reduced, and one such measure could be better institutionalization to help those who are not involved in the process, and sometimes the management of the process of technological change.

Let’s think about globalization. Although it creates important economic benefits, it also destroys companies, jobs and destroys lives. If our instinct tells us to increase such a price, we may not think of trying to reduce it. However, we could do much more to help negatively impacted companies (which can invest and expand into new areas), workers who lose their jobs, and communities that are stifled by innovation.

Failure to grasp such nuances has opened the door to the rampant destruction and disruption that Silicon Valley has been waging for the past few decades. As we move forward, and especially when talking about AI, we should be guided by three principles. First, as in the case of globalization, the most important thing is to help those who are negatively affected by the innovation, and not to do it unplanned, after all.

Second, we should not assume that demolition is inevitable. As I argued earlier, AI does not necessarily have to lead to the destruction of jobs. If the developers and implementers of AI will work with only automation in mind (this is what many Silicon Valley titans desire), the technology will only bring even greater hardship to working companies. Therefore, they may turn to more attractive alternative paths. After all, AI has the potential to increase employee productivity by providing them with better data and equipping them with tools to perform more complex tasks.

Third, we must remember that the existing social and economic relations are extremely complex. Disrupting them can have all sorts of unintended consequences. Facebook and other social media platforms were not meant to poison the public discourse with extremism, false information and addiction. However, in their haste to break up the former relationship, they followed their principle of quick action and subsequent forgiveness.

We urgently need to pay more attention to how the next wave of disruptive innovation may affect our social, democratic and civic institutions. In order to get the maximum benefit from cross-destruction, it is necessary to properly balance innovation-promoting politics and democratic input. If we leave institutions to protect technology entrepreneurs, we risk creating greater destruction than faith.

The commentary was written by Daron Acemoglu, professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2024

The opinion of the author does not necessarily coincide with the editorial position.