IS AI OVERBLOWN
The general public are beginning to realise AI is the next global technological breakthrough that this time will effect intimately their everyday lives.
The tone taken is one of a threat, comparable to the one that the Luddite protestors felt. They were led by a Ned Ludd, whom with his followers across the textile factories, opposed the introduction of mechanised processes. The movement started on 11th March 1811 in Arnold, Nottingham. Twenty years later in 1831, in a neighbouring area, the Broxtowe Mob burnt down Nottingham Castle, but this time for rejection of the Reform Act designed to broaden the voting franchise. As a Broxtowe Boy myself we do seem to be a rebellious lot!
These were precursors to the start of the Industrial Revolution in 1840 that led to the mass mechanisation of physical human tasks, grassroot innovation, job creation, challenges and massive change. The result was the elevation of mankind from centuries of poverty and servitude to higher plains of well-being for the many.
So how does AI fit in during modern times.
The first mantra we must dismiss is that AI is a threat, yes, a challenge for huge change, but not a threat. It is not intelligent either. It is simply the ability to undertake mental tasks based on digitalised data beyond our individual mental capacities. It relies on limited data and knowledge, possesses no creativity and does not comprehend human interactions. Ask it to produce an accurate 30-day weather forecast, earnings forecast, exchange rate changes or more challenging how to construct a fly that reproduces itself, delivers its own energy source and be a nuisance to the rest of us, it will fail miserably!
So to put it into some context of magnitude I have tracked my personal experience of manipulating data over the last 65 years and the advent of AI’s for comparison.
At the age of 16, I was faced with compiling the additions for purchase and sales days books, previous to decimalisation of the pound, including half pennies but excluding farthings. Farthings had been disbanded the year before in 1960, close call that one. Yes I am that old. As you had to account for purchase tax there were three columns in purchase day books that had to cross cast; net, purchase tax and total. Vat arrived much later in 1973, so eased into that one before sales too were in three columns.
There was the abacus and slide rule, but they weren’t fit for purpose the additions had to be done mentally. You got so proficient you could add the shillings and pence columns together before moving onto the pounds. Then new technology arrived, rotary calculators and better still add listing machines that gave you a printed output so you could check for input errors. When you had annual books of account running to over 100 pages that was a great boost if the figures didn’t cross cast and you had to search for the error. The work rate went up.
That was fine for adding or subtracting but not multiplication, division or application of formulae. Then we had the desk top and pocket calculator. Now we are really motoring. Speed increased and the coverage of applications expanded.
Spreadsheets had to be done manually, and a great skill required to determine most likely outcomes, base case and best case scenarios. Great for comprehension of the various factors bearing on potential outcomes but limiting the ability to measure all variables.
Then the blockbuster, the desk top computer delivering digital communication, search engines, and for me excel spreadsheets. Wow, this really unleased great opportunities. You could model on a desk top computer major companies. I did this many times to demonstrate the effect of innovative technologies or new frameworks of business model on major enterprises. Sometimes to the point of fundamentally changing their prospects.
But latterly there has been a problem in communication formats and the development of websites. This manifests itself in many ways but the crucial point is that real communication has ceased and the formats are used as barriers to discussion.
I live in France and discover my entitlement to drive a motorbike was removed for no good reason. Whilst the process to reverse it was tortuous bureaucratically, I did at least have recorded acknowledgement of my enquiries and its status within the system. It was suggested I obtained the original UK licence to support my case and verify I had passed the driving test. To my horror the UK had removed my entitlement as well, so I asked for the original before they amended it without notification. Twice they repeated the same error and sent copies of the current status. The third attempt it worked. Eventually it wasn’t needed and I had the problem resolved in France.
Having been invited to examine the working of a private trust fund I had concerns there was prima facie evidence of fraud. I turned to the Fraud Police for advice. Fraud is a very difficult crime to convict as it requires irrefutable evidence of intent. To make an enquiry you are required to convey your concerns within 2500 words. Therefore you have to summarise the points. You get a response that the police could not find the lines of enquiry. To help I did an exercise which proved not only intent but there could be tax evasion as well involving significant sums. I prepared a detailed report and informed the police this was available by separate submission due to the content restrictions. They didn’t bother reading it!
I was approached recently to become a candidate to be a member of parliament. The nature of the invitation required furnishing very detailed personal and private information, a curriculum vitae and declaration of your political philosophies and the values and experiences you could bring to bear to implement them. You would have expected that the design of an application form would be robust and great care taken on its construction. The first problem was the information for a second reference could not be added, the second problem that whilst the form catered for non-residents Brits the payment system for the fee wouldn’t accept a foreign bank address. This was reported to the leader of the party and their administration via a separate email as the application website was constructed on a non-reply basis. No response. When it came to checking later that the information 100% matched my files to my horror the so called saved file had completely disappeared. My only conclusion is that if this party can’t organise an application properly what happens when you get to the really complex stuff?
The issues go beyond pure processes but communication itself. How many people get detailed emails? Are you the many who get a knee-jerk response coupled with a matching emoji. Walking round my gym around 40% of the youngsters are busy on their I-Phones! How can you properly exercise, cool muscles or obstruct others attached to an electrical device?
The danger is when the whole process winds up to at least ten times what it is now what happens then. Chaos! How often are you asked when your correspondent makes a mistake are you asked to route your problem through another channel. No, you made the error, you fix it!
So AI will help, there will be no mass redundancies, it can’t fix your tap leaking or maintain your car. You have to fully recognise its limitations. If it was that good why isn’t someone churning out repeated hit pop songs?
Keep calm and you will still be saying the same thing I have over the last 65 years!
Unlike the Industrial Revolution the prospects for a national economy are in too few hands. The share of global trade of digital companies is already 39%, dominated by one country the USA. This share is likely to grow causing grave stresses to the welfare system whereby wealth is concentrate in two few hands, information flows are corrupted and cultures undermined. This is what governments have to pay critical attention to. That risk wasn’t there before.
Like all tools you have to learn how to use them for the best outcomes. There is a massive learning curve ahead of us.
