By Radha Dhar
Ex Machina: The revolution is here
There was a scene in the Oscar-nominated true-story film, Hidden Figures, where number-crunching black women of the 1960s at NASA learn of a new technological beast that has entered the premises, called the International Business Machine (IBM), which could essentially do their manual computing jobs for them. Their choice is to either learn how to work the machine or be worked over by it. So, they learned IBM programming to stay ahead of the tech curve.
A lot has changed since then. In this exponentially speedy technology arch, humans are just sprinting to keep up with machines. In fact, at this point, statistics show we may have already lost the race. IBM Watson can win chess matches and interpret poetry. Microsoft has machine receptionists to greet you as you enter their offices, take messages, and predictively open the elevator for you. Apples tier-1 engineers and tech support are auto-attendants. Robots perform surgeries. Media-buying firms have bots “bid” among each other through software and optimisation algorithms, effectively replacing the entire human negotiation process. Google’s cars drive themselves. Siri has full conversations. Data analyst roles, programming positions, the customer service sector, manufacturing, restaurants, supply chain inventoryall have already been replaced in many companies around the world.
McKinsey research intimates that current technology, as it stands, could viably replace 45% of jobs this instant. We are in the midst of an Artificial Intelligence (AI) revolution. It is no longer a matter of if, but when.
McKinsey’s research says Artificial Intelligence could viably replace 45% of current jobs | Photo Courtesy: NorthstarWhats the ‘BIG’ idea?
Many have been trying to address the solution to this inevitability. One particular economic restructure option has resurfaced from the 60s, and has been gaining greater and greater endorsements by tech CEOs and reputed experts alike very recently. The theory is referred to as Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) or Universal or Unconditional Basic Income (UBI). Once a bizarre hypothetical, BIG, or UBI, now is seemingly the most feasible immediate solution, should a machine takeover happen in the near future.
The concept of BIG entails paying people a fixed sum monthly income, regardless of whether they work or not, in the event that jobs are not available due to replacement by AI.
The idea is to proactively compensate people for the sudden churn to prevent otherwise certain upheaval and rebellion. This periodical allowance would be an approximate sum of $2,000; enough to ensure basic survival, but nothing more. It would essentially be a holistic welfare distribution policy.
The case of the ‘Digital Refugees’
[su_pullquote align=”right”]The skills of those workers replaced by the AI would be rendered obsolete.[/su_pullquote]
Needless to say, this is controversial. Socialist ideas like handouts or welfare schemes have not gone over well in the past, and certainly, have a history of inconclusive political debates among the economic classes of the world. The designated salary amount would be of major contention as well, as it would force many formerly skilled workers into near poverty. Their skills would be rendered obsoleteleading them to either need an advanced education which is going to be costly or surrender to their fate of barely meeting ends. Even with education, fighting the resulting disparate competition, due to an insurmountable job ratio, would be an uphill battle.
Another major complaint against BIG is that it may de-incentivize work and promote laziness, further perpetuating the unemployment predicament. Moreover, experts suggest, people could lose their sense of purpose without a career. BIG or not, someone will need to find a way to handle these displaced digital refugeesas Salesforce CEO, Marc Benioff, coined them during the World Economic Forum this year.
Big people give BIG endorsements
As crazy as all of this sounds, UBI is seriously being considered as the answer, by everyone from the tech savvy minds of Silicon Valley to the visionaries who dominate world politics. The likes of Tesla CEO, Elon Musk, and former US President, Barack Obama, have validated the system. Musk matter-of-factly told the World Government Summit that he felt it would be the future reality. He theorises that the machines would be able to create so much wealth that there would be enough money to go around. Imagine that.
Elon Musk suggested universal basic income as the possible solution | Photo Courtesy: Christian Edwin’s Blog[su_pullquote]Barack Obama admitted that the threat of automation could necessitate a universal income system.[/su_pullquote]
Meanwhile, in talks with MIT and Wired, Americas former president Barack Obama admitted that the threat of automation could necessitate a universal income system. Although, he notes that such a scenario may be some time from now. Moreover, he points out, it could come with cons like suppression of wages and increase of inequality, all of which need to be weighed out. Jim Pugh, Obamas former analytics chief, reasoned that “if you can guarantee an income floor to everyone, at least it won’t drop people into desolate poverty.” Bill Gates too made headlines recently at the notion of implementing a robot tax to restore the flow of money back into governments in the future. At the end of the day, advocates advice is clear: when the time comes that the current economic structure becomes obsolete, we better be ready with a backup plan.
The human factor
Business aside, companies could simply look out for the humanity in their employees, Baird suggests, as they should.
However, its not all robot dystopia. Ross Baird, executive director at Village Capital, sees an alternative future. He points out that corporate social responsibility can prevent this so-called takeover. Baird feels automation is really a result of businesses zeroing in on the bottom lineoverlooking their employees well-being. He highlights the importance of not seeing workers as just a commodity that can generate x output, but rather recognize the value human workers can contribute, such as creativity, innovation, and empathy. Looking at the business this way could dramatically reshape future prospects and strategy. Corporations could focus on training and idea generation through collaborative initiatives. Business aside, companies could simply look out for the humanity in their employees, Baird suggests, as they should.
But, who knows where competition and greed could direct the future as it inches over the line. What level of ”efficiency” or “optimisation” is enough? Is shaving some bucks off the bottom line worth putting people out on the streets? Only time will tell.
Featured Image Source: Aucorant
[su_note note_color=”#d2eaf6″]Fresh insights delivered to your phone each morning. Download our Android App today![/su_note]