Rights and solidarity in an age of AI
Talk of human obsolescence of AI/automated systems need to consider that the practical reality is no matter what system is put in place it is always going to be flawed. Automated systems, as autopilots, are fully capable of landing a plane or driving a train (and do). However, the reason why we still have and train drivers is because we understand things go wrong those automated systems cannot resolve issues by themselves, but also because humans act as fuses in the machine to stop and put the brake on when things go wrong.
This notion of human fuse is partly down to union pressure in aviation and other transport providers, the fear of losing jobs and prior disasters have made many wary of fully automated systems without human oversight. This means that talk of automation is relevant and timely. There is also a need to possibly unionise those work forces that are currently being transformed by automation. This is not to say the automation will not take place, but to off-set negative social and logical impacts, we need to consider how to organise labour more effectively.
Pushback, obviously, will come from businesses and tech evangelists who believe that automation invariably overcomes the sins of the human form. Yes, there is a case to be made for the removal of dangerous and drudge work, work that breaks the human body, spirit, and mind for little more than daily bread, but at the same time much of what is now being replaced by automation is that that edge between judgement calls and the need to prevent danger. The cost of the human in the machine mitigates the risk of a fully automated system, which while maybe 99.9% or more perfect, still leaves room for possibly unjustifiable actions when human lives are in the mix. This is true of doctors and actuaries as it is police and transport.
Aside from the obvious moral questions about the trolley problem, which only make sense in a fully automated system without such a fuse, the critical question becomes one of ethics. To put large swathes of the population through an economic tumult akin to the early days of the Industrial Revolution. This time around it is not just manual labour that is being overhauled by automation, it is also professional classes and those with advanced learning that are coming under increasing wage and labour pressure. Ethically, society needs to ask what the value of labour is, and more fundamentally what is a value of the human condition.
Human beings should not be solely quantified just based on their ability to do Labour, whatever form that might take, but on their intrinsic humanity and their right exist as citizens within Society. We take for granted a certain degree of democratic stability based around a certain social order, which depends on at least the facade of social mobility for our next generation to advance further than we have. Without that hope, and with the degradation potentially of our own economic prospects, an ever-increasing entrenchment of rights for a small elite Who benefit from the changes could spark shifts that diminish everyone else within Society.
Automation is not a fig leaf to cover the sins of neoliberal economics and political decision making, however, it is a symptom of the growing disparity that has ruptured many democratic societies in the last 20 years. The fact that AI Heralds such opportunity alleviate hunger, climate change, a multitude of other social ills plaguing our societies, should not blind us to the fact that we still need to have synthesis between humans and machines to prevent a full scale retrenchment of rights like what happened during the early 19th century. If the revolutions of 1830 and 1849 show us anything, it is that rapid social change when alleviated with good social policy ensures that democratic principles can be upheld; however, ignoring or politically squashing the need for Change leads to significant social harm in the long run. Brexit and election of right-wing demagogues across the democratic world show why it is imperative for labour and liberal movements to address the underlying social issues rather than trying to fight old battles. A universal basic income could be one answer, taking the absolute need to work out of the equation, however, the question would then become about equitable redistribution, loci of power, and potentially the quintessence of who we are as a culture.
Ultimately, by having a synthesis of humans and machines, we can augment the great advances in technology that AI heralds, and address critical sociological questions that and automation poses. It does not have to be an either/or problem, rather I believe it should be a blended approach that harnesses the Best of Both elements by removing the drudge and back breaking toil which has broken so many bodies in the past. Human beings are never just in a machine, and we are worth far more than just the value of our labour, so while sociologically we need to address these issues as a matter of urgency, we should not simply see AI and automation as a means of removing humans from the system. Rights depends on an actively engaged citizenry, and the fear is that most of the AI/automation conversation is going on below the belt, thus disengaging most people. The first step to protecting rights must be reengaging people and making them care about the longer term, for both themselves and their family. A symbiotic relationship with machines offers a far brighter potential than a gradual imposition that excludes an ever increasing number of folk.
