2.7.26
Dear Partners in Thought,
We can now read tonnes of pieces on AI and its revolutionary nature but not much on how to deal with it in a serious manner. I think that it is time to address the matter in a focused way and look at options to manage what is a world-impactful development that some may also rightly see as society-destroying. Here is a concise note, aside from the flurry of technological details, on potentially dealing with AI today and tomorrow.
AI clearly represents the key tool of an industrial revolution akin to, if not actually more impactful than, the introduction of the first automobiles in the early 20th century but also with many potential societal damages (Henry Ford was indeed the earlier Elon Musk or Sam Altman, also at financial levels, while he was already stressing the visionary entrepreneurial drive of America.) While many books can be written about AI and its advantages and drawbacks, the big factor in this new game-changing technological development is not only the tool itself but its type of users. AI users who can “think” and are usually of the educated kind can manage this new tool efficiently and deal with the too many wrong or unfitting answers it can also provide. There is no doubt that AI can help smart and educated users to even become experts on new subject matters while making sure the output is well managed. By the same token, individuals who do not have the tools to “think” (of the critical kind) due to little or no education or suitable background, which the AI industry artfully calls “median persons”, can naturally feel that they have answers to their questions but will often not be able to interpret them or to ensure their veracity (also as AI input will differ depending on the tool used). Many people today use ChatGPT to get quick and practical input on many topics but can hurt themselves, especially in a work or job application context if they do not understand what AI really produces for them. The inability to check what AI really produces has already cost many people their jobs while job applicants who obtain interviews via letters produced by AI may face interviewers easily noticing a human disconnect during actual interviews.
While some workers will adjust to AI changes over time , this new revolution will clearly affect job opportunities for young aspiring professionals of all sorts as many employers, as already seen in the audit and consulting fields, have heavily invested in AI and drastically reduced new hirings over the last two years. The problem society will face is what to do with a rise in unemployment for graduates (with associated mental health and likely rising crime issues) and – not seen as a problem yet – how to find more senior professionals in twenty years from now if they have not been trained to eventually excel in these senior roles. This mass unemployment, that may create a “permanent underclass”, which Silicon Valley is already bracing for, will also need to be funded by the countries where these individuals live.
In addition, AI may put into question the traditional higher educational path taken by many since the 20thcentury in making people feel they do not need formal education when AI is there for them. This approach may hurt, if not destroy, the academic foundations of universities and graduate schools that gave the world its leaders and senior professionals while it would make it challenging for society to select its future leaders. High schools may become focused on how to use AI as opposed to providing basic knowledge in terms of science, languages or history that a laptop could provide in no time and without the soon-to-be-historical years of learning and mind-shaping.
In spite of the rising popular backlash worldwide, it will not be possible to stop AI developments even if they will affect society while also bringing some positive developments like improving work time-efficiency, as mentioned by a few firms already, or help cure untreatable diseases and improve green tech as naturally stressed by the AI sector. This AI development will keep going strongly also led by the quest for profit by the founders, leaders and key staffs of AI companies. Sensible regulations should be naturally put in place to ensure the best management of AI among businesses and society, this being a likely challenge as Big Tech leaders and the likes will fund and support politicians to ensure the lowest regulatory environment as possible, this being seen already with the clear Big Tech courting and funding of grateful and supportive hard right populist leaders in America and across Europe.
There will be a need for society to develop suitable reforms and fund the many jobless individuals that AI will unwittingly but automatically create, this being the key issue for governments globally, which will deal with a much-reduced workforce and thus taxpayers. Short of providing 50% of the equity of AI platforms to the public as the highly progressive Senator Bernie Sanders put forward in the US – and for the US -, taxation of an unusual kind may be an innovative option. Substantial taxation of the Big Tech/AI leaders, their senior management and companies would be the natural option for governments, assuming Big Tech does not first rule the world as a “Technopoly” given the very strong personalities of some of its leaders, many who also view democracy as an inconvenience. Dealing with AI-induced joblessness that would be defended as work efficiency enhancement and staff cost reductions, would require many mega-billions, which the Big Tech and AI leaders are already enjoying as business rewards. Efficient and commensurate taxation would need to be put in place across the world with a sensible cooperation or global programme between governments to ensure a fair and novel redistribution of tax revenues among all users’ markets, so initial joblessness is managed well globally.
Given that most AI companies are US-based and America would initially enjoy a clear product dominance (even if China with DeepSeek is gradually developing a real presence and bringing a geopolitical flavour to the issue), it would be key to ensure American support for this redistributive tax initiative to be coordinated by the like of a World Bank institution for AI. Such an unusual approach, that admittedly reflects my multilateral institutional background, should be a global win-win as it would also guarantee that the US, as the main source of tax-based funding globally, would eventually export its AI products even more widely (though with some likely restrictions regarding national security as we recently saw with Anthropic). While redirecting joblessness funding to all countries that experienced the joblessness impact of US AI products and services, which would involve a tricky negotiation, the US would also benefit from appearing as the AI global winner and saviour while restoring its image as a world leader that has been seriously weakened under Trump 2.0.
The proposed unusual and bold approach that would be like a global Marshall Plan of our times would not be anti-American in essence but simply targeting AI companies wherever they would be based, so they and their leaderships would contribute to the needed adjustment the world would need. It would naturally not cover all the funding needs faced by governments globally but would be instrumental in assisting them in dealing with the joblessness AI would create. In some ways, such an approach could also be timely, seen as one of the best and new facets of globalisation, knowing that what many saw as a sound “peace through trade” order was not always enjoyed due to heavy job losses in the US and Western manufacturing sectors. Such a move would naturally be sensitive in relation to the US today given that the AI sector not only made fortunes for their corporate founders but also allowed Trump 2.0 to benefit from a thriving stock market, also offsetting a major decline that would have occurred based on the range of poor government policy decisions at all levels, the mismanaged Iran war and its adverse economic impacts globally being a leading example. However, even investors now seem to feel that the AI stock market boom that helped the NASDAQ, Dow Jones and other tech indices beat records is under threat as seen by recent market dives that might herald a forthcoming AI bubble reminiscent of the internet one of the early 2000s as if rationality had finally taken over investor minds.
Similarly, it would be key to ensure that these AI founders, leaders and companies would not use the usual tax avoidance or reduction mechanisms they naturally always seek from expert professional advisers. In addition, they should not exit to jurisdictions offering low if not no taxation, this leading to ensuring pressures of all kinds on tax heavens globally, again assuming a global cooperation can be reached and sensible American support granted. There is little doubt that, after a heavy taxation drive, Big Tech leaders would focus less on money-maximisation (knowing they would still be enormously wealthy) and more on ensuring that AI developments also nurture as many jobs as possible, this to reduce the toxicity of their image and own societal funding burden (not to mention preserving their lives, especially in a wild NRA-friendly America). It should be hoped that the likes of Elon Musk, whose wealth already exceeds his native South African GDP, would see where his true long-term interests lie.
This proposal is potentially too drastic while not reflecting the new world we know today to be implemented in the short term without intense debates but should serve as a conceptual basis for governments to think on how to deal with the impacts of AI, preferably in a productively collective manner. This note should make people think about how AI should be dealt with so it brings to humanity the right answers than can be finally defined as societal progress even if also still destructive or, at best, disruptive in nature. Time will be needed for society to adjust, but capitalism should not reach an overly excessive point when a few benefit mega-financially while most of humanity sinks in despair about what life and work mean going forward. There is no doubt that a huge majority of citizens across the world will back a system when all win from this revolution, also leading Big Tech to join in a sound financial partnership to make AI liveable and become a real progress over time. Some work could then be done to further avoid some serious other AI and Big Tech-induced societal issues like the sadly now old screen-hooked youth “isolation” and the new huge energy-consuming AI data centres.
And as we should always keep a good sense of humour in challenging times, I should stress that I have not used any AI tool to write this piece – something the pure AI-loving opponents of my proposals may indeed amusingly stress. By and large, I think that I will keep to that old-fashioned approach, at least for now.
Warmest regards,
Serge
Desperate Measures 