I am a technological Luddite. Our new streaming television system frustrates me.
So why am I writing a column about artificial intelligence? Good question.
Most everyone agrees AI will be transformative. I’ve talked to very smart people who suggest the benefits of AI will be enormous, while the downsides are exaggerated, as we invariably adapt to new technologies. Others say it will be game-changing, but tens of millions of Americans could lose their jobs with racial and economic disparities exacerbated.
Then I read an Atlantic piece by Josh Tyrangiel who really knows the subject. With deep reporting he makes a compelling case for both views.
As ignorant as I am about technology, I know a bit about politics. Over the next eight months this may well become a major issue.
The public already is worried. In a Pew Research Center survey last fall most Americans said AI will worsen their ability to think creatively and are more concerned than excited about the possibilities, saying they want more control over how this affects their lives.
Even more striking, with young people 18 to 29 years old, Artificial intelligence is their top concern, with 59% saying it is a threat to their job prospects, according to a Harvard University youth poll.
Moreover, says John Della Volpe, who conducts the survey, it’s equally true of college educated and noncollege citizens.
The advocates have clout and an appealing story. Realistic promises of better health diagnoses and outcomes; more efficient financial services; adding content in areas like the media, education and the legal profession among others.
They bring considerable resources including plans to spend big in political campaigns against opponents. And there’s the Chinese scare that the U.S. can’t let its major adversary take the lead in artificial intelligence. China has a few advantages the U.S. can’t replicate like a massive surveillance state.
Then there’s their all-out champion in the White House. Donald Trump, who no doubt somehow gets a piece of the action, has declared artificial intelligence a prime national priority with hardly any restrictions. He and congressional Republicans have gone a step further: seeking to ban any state regulation over the next ten years.
“The industry has long warned about the ‘risks’ or ‘costs’ of a fragmented patchwork of state laws,” notes the liberal Center for American Progress. “But those same companies have often been the first to oppose serious federal proposals, particularly comprehensive privacy [laws.]”
This should be a winning issue for Democrats and any of those remaining traditional Republicans who believe in some states rights. The most robust state effort probably is in California where the state legislature has passed multiple bills regulating chatbot disclosures, data broker transparency and health privacy. The California Privacy Protection Agency (CalPrivacy) could be a model for other states.
However, facing fierce opposition, the Democrats pulled back from a more sweeping measure that would require individuals to be notified when any AI decisions would impact their lives.
The industry also faces pushback about the huge data centers around the country. Critics charge these are driving up electricity costs. There are particular tensions with some farm communities as these centers can take up to 1,000 acres, potentially crowding out prime farmland.
In Washington, a handful of congressional Democrats -- including Ted Lieu, Ro Khanna, and Don Beyer in the House and Ron Wyden and Gary Peters in the Senate -- are sounding the alarm over an unregulated AI. About the only congressional action this year will be defensive.
But the politics will heat up and may transcend ideology. Tyrangiel captured the odd couple opponents, socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders and right wing provocateur Steve Bannon, a sometime confidant of both Trump and sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein. Both see cataclysmic changes with unimaginable numbers of workers losing their jobs if there is no regulation.
Bannon goes even further and says the federal government should own up to 50% of the artificial intelligence companies.
I’m not sure that many candidates this fall will go that far, but given the possible stakes the pro regulation advocates will have a decided advantage.
With that not so fearless prediction I have to prepare for my AI tutoring session. An American University student majoring in AI is trying to teach the basics to me and four other seniors. Fortunately, she is very patient.
China’s surveillance state is a plus and a minus, isn’t it. China has a history of stealing technology. I think the US can maintain an advantage over China. At least it would, if we get rid of Trump in the White House.
Savior or destroyer?
Yes.
Not just for writing — for work, medicine, education, media, even politics. The same systems that can help a rural clinic diagnose disease faster can also mass-produce misinformation. The same tools that let a solo creator compete with a studio can also let bad actors scale deception.
That duality isn’t new. Electricity powered hospitals and execution chambers. The internet created open knowledge and algorithmic chaos. AI is leverage — it amplifies intent.
The real question isn’t whether it’s good or bad.
It’s who wields it, what incentives govern it, and whether our institutions evolve fast enough to keep up.