Things to keep in mind when talking about AI


Our world is continuously evolving and with it our technology. One of the most impactful advances of recent times is the increasing presence of AI in our professional lives. This may seem thrilling, but its context may play a vital role.

Oor­spronke­lijk gepub­liceerd op 29/11/2019 – 3:50 door Julian Jacobs

Dit artikel werdt oor­pronke­lijk gepub­liceerd op de oude Scham­per site. Toen deze uit gebruik werd genomen, wer­den alle artikels overgezet.

Today’s debate about arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence (AI) has a peo­ple prob­lem. All too often, when com­men­ta­tors dis­cuss AI, dig­i­tal­iza­tion, and the future of work, there is a ten­den­cy to focus on broad macro-eco­nom­ic con­cepts or abstract ideas. Will AI lead to the end of work, vast GDP (Bru­to Bin­nen­lands Prod­uct, red.) growth and high­er pro­duc­tiv­i­ty? What about high­er inequal­i­ty? Dur­ing dis­cus­sions about how tech­no­log­i­cal changes will impact the US econ­o­my, a real engage­ment with the peo­ple affect­ed by that dis­rup­tion is lost. What are their back­grounds, how do they live?

Although there are many ways of look­ing at these ques­tions, there are three par­tic­u­lar­ly pow­er­ful ways of under­stand­ing how AI might affect peo­ple and places.

History Repeating Itself

Let’s take a look at edu­ca­tion and skill lev­el first. Some eco­nom­ic his­to­ry is essen­tial here. In past peri­ods of rapid tech­no­log­i­cal expan­sion and dis­rup­tion – most notably, the Indus­tri­al Rev­o­lu­tion and ear­ly 20th cen­tu­ry – the pro­duc­tiv­i­ty growth of the time helped pro­duce greater inequal­i­ty for a brief peri­od. This “Engels’ Pause” hap­pens when pro­duc­tiv­i­ty, the val­ue a sin­gle work­er can pro­duce, ris­es faster than the val­ue of their wages. Mean­while, the automa­tion of labor crushed mid­dle-wage work, which was attrac­tive ground for tech­no­log­i­cal replace­ment because it was both rou­tine and rel­a­tive­ly high-pay­ing.

The pro­duc­tiv­i­ty growth of the time helped pro­duce greater inequal­i­ty

Those mid­dle-wage jobs were swift­ly replaced with new work in either high-wage occu­pa­tions or with low-wage work. The bot­tom line was a polar­ized econ­o­my, with a grow­ing num­ber of skilled and high-pay­ing work and a grow­ing num­ber of unskilled and low-pay­ing work, leav­ing a stag­nat­ing mid­dle class. This his­to­ry is essen­tial because these same inequal­i­ty-induc­ing forces have been around in the US econ­o­my since the 1980s.

Now, how does this help us under­stand how AI affects peo­ple? The answer deals with ris­ing pre­mi­ums for high skill work; as wages and labor polar­ize, peo­ple who are high­ly edu­cat­ed, or pos­sess skills that are com­ple­ment­ed by the rise of AI, ben­e­fit. This is true for indi­vid­u­als who, for exam­ple, can effec­tive­ly imple­ment AI in a firm or are skilled at devel­op­ing and uti­liz­ing the tech­nol­o­gy. Nat­u­ral­ly, most of these peo­ple tend to be col­lege-edu­cat­ed, and this is why degrees from top uni­ver­si­ties in rel­e­vant fields are com­mand­ing increas­ing­ly high wages. For indi­vid­u­als with­out degrees, how­ev­er, prospects of access to high paid employ­ment have dwin­dled. This is why six­ty per­cent of the rise in US eco­nom­ic inequal­i­ty from 1980 to 2005 is a direct result of ris­ing pre­mi­ums for col­lege degrees.

Down a Dark Road

If we can estab­lish that those who prof­it of AI are dis­pro­por­tion­ate­ly indi­vid­u­als with col­lege degrees or skills com­ple­ment­ed by mod­ern tech­nol­o­gy, then we can map out those ben­e­fi­cia­ries along lines of geog­ra­phy. Research by Mark Muro, of the Brook­ings Insti­tu­tion, shows that dig­i­tal­iza­tion – the rise of dig­i­tal skills in the work­place – is hap­pen­ing all over the Unit­ed States, but is reach­ing cer­tain places much more quick­ly than oth­ers. As men­tioned ear­li­er, high­er dig­i­tal­iza­tion tends to lead to high­er wages and pro­tec­tion from automa­tion.

Rur­al parts of the coun­try see far low­er lev­els of dig­i­tal skills

The results of Muro’s research are unsur­pris­ing. Dig­i­tal tech­nol­o­gy and dig­i­tal skills are most con­cen­trat­ed in pros­per­ous, cos­mopoli­tan, and diverse cities. Out­side of Sil­i­con Val­ley, the rise of dig­i­tal­iza­tion has been promi­nent in New York, Wash­ing­ton D.C. and oth­er small­er pock­ets in Den­ver, St. Louis, and Austin. On the oth­er side, rur­al parts of the coun­try see far low­er lev­els of dig­i­tal skills. This is why it seems like­ly that, with­out a pol­i­cy response, these regions will con­tin­ue to strug­gle with rel­a­tive pover­ty, deaths of despair from opi­oids and sui­cides, declin­ing lifes­pans in cer­tain places, and gen­er­al­ly a loss of indus­try.

Of course, the US rep­u­ta­tion con­tin­ues to be stained by high race and gen­der inequal­i­ty and though things have improved in recent decades, AI may dis­rupt that progress. If high­er edu­ca­tion and dig­i­tal skills are the keys to prof­it­ing from a dig­i­tal­iz­ing future, it is a con­cern that Black and His­pan­ic Amer­i­cans are dis­pro­por­tion­ate­ly under­rep­re­sent­ed in tech. There­fore, it comes as no sur­prise that His­pan­ic and Black Amer­i­cans also tend to work in jobs with the high­est vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty to automa­tion.

AI and Gender

The effects of AI on gen­der inequal­i­ty are more ambigu­ous. Men are far more like­ly to work in the high­ly paid tech jobs; only a quar­ter of tech work­ers are women. Yet, because men are also more like­ly to work in high­ly automat­able jobs – e.g. man­u­fac­tur­ing – and because women are dis­pro­por­tion­ate­ly rep­re­sent­ed in health care, per­son­al ser­vices, and edu­ca­tion occu­pa­tions, all of which are hard­er to auto­mate, the effects of AI are hard­er to gen­er­al­ize. Prin­ci­pal­ly, how­ev­er, it seems true that skilled men are more like­ly to expe­ri­ence the ben­e­fits of AI, while unskilled men might be hurt. Women, on the oth­er hand, appear slight­ly more pro­tect­ed from expe­ri­enc­ing either effect.

So what should we make of this? The ben­e­fi­cia­ries of AI tend to be city-dwelling, col­lege-edu­cat­ed, white or Asian, and male. And the peo­ple most like­ly to be hurt by AI tend to live in rur­al places, lack high skills, and are His­pan­ic or Black and also male. Sim­ply put, AI ampli­fies the struc­tur­al inequal­i­ties and priv­i­leges that are already present in US soci­ety and will, there­fore, play a vital role when push­ing for progress in race, gen­der, and geog­ra­phy equal­i­ty.