I think artificial intelligence should be embraced, but it should be embraced responsibly. Sure, there are aspects and potential consequences of it that should be feared, but I think the best thing we can do is try to address how we plan on handling such situations. History shows us that innovation is inevitable, and so I don’t think this is a question of whether we should stop artificial intelligence and automation but rather how are we going to respond to it. There is a legitimate fear that such innovation can threaten many jobs, and I don’t think that can be prevented but we as a society can respond to such automation in a way that mitigates the harm that comes out of such a grand loss of employment.
I do believe offering some sort of a universal basic income as a large number of jobs have been automated or are in danger of being automated in the near future. Many people who have these jobs have been doing such work their whole life, so it’s not reasonable to expect them to smoothly transition to a higher skilled newly created job. Many don’t have the time or money for further education, rather they likely have immediate needs to take care of themselves and their families. Given that greater profits are being made out of their jobs being automated, it makes sense that more taxes are accumulated to support these people who have been stripped of their means to make a living. I know in class the concern that UBI would make the prices of everything go up so it wouldn’t really have a positive impact, but I don’t think that would be the case. Usually, prices rise when cost of living rises, which can be due to more demand to live in places with not enough housing to meet the demand and higher wages that correlate with the higher cost of living. UBI isn’t asking wages to be increased and it wouldn’t necessarily raise demand for housing in a particular area. I look at San Francisco, where many more millionaires are made with each IPO of a startup in the area, which also means many more people who can’t afford housing and may end up homeless. I think people receiving $1000 a month won’t change the prices in a city that has already been plagued by such gentrification. The biggest impact I see it having is that those struggling the most with poverty may finally afford to survive in the city or will at least have the means to move out of the city to a place with more reasonable prices. In the end, I think society’s greatest responsibility with the rise of such innovation is to make sure that the people of the present are forgotten. I get that there is hope that new jobs will be created, and that may be true. If that is not the case, we must be prepared to handle mass unemployment. Even if it does turn out to be the case, we should be mindful of the people of the present that are being harmed and will not receive any benefit from such newly created jobs.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorMarcos Salamanca Archives
October 2019
Categories |