Ryan Hagemann for the Niskanen Center: The fears over artificial intelligence, while at a very early stage, are an expected feature of the “techno-panics” associated with emerging technologies. As described in a paper from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation’s Daniel Castro and Alan McQuinn, these panics are part of a broader privacy panic cycle …
The cycle is composed of four stages: trusted beginnings, rising panic, deflating fears and moving on. So where are we with fears over AI? Based on the cross-ideological concerns, Mercatus senior research fellow Adam Thierer noted … that we’re still in the “rising panic” stage of the current AI hysteria.
Unfortunately, we haven’t yet reached peak hysteria. That boiling-over point, however, is probably coming sooner than a lot of people expect — legislators, regulators, researchers and those techno-optimists who tout this technology’s benefits should be prepared. Although the anti-AI frenzy will inevitably pass, there are going to be some bumps along the way. To ease the transition through this phase of the panic cycle, legislators and regulators can start by simply avoiding the use of apocalyptic, doomsaying language when discussing this technology. They also should refrain from reflexively responding to those passing concerns with overly burdensome rules and restrictions. We’re at a key development point in AI. Avoiding prescriptive mandates and technology-specific regulations is more important than ever, especially in the wake of the public’s creeping fears.
As people become more acclimated to the many benefits AI is poised to offer us, they’ll incorporate its use into daily life more and more. As with most technologies, once AI is palpably assimilated into our lives, the how-could-we-ever-have-done-without-it mentality will sink in, just as it did with the camera, RFID chips and the smartphone. Until then, expect a lot of wariness and uncertainty from across the ideological divide.
Workers need to change to survive
Rachel Stephens for Third Way: When ATMs were deployed in the late 1990s, it seemed clear that bank tellers would soon become obsolete.
But instead, bank teller employment has grown an average of 2 percent per year since 2000, faster than overall employment growth. How did this happen? New technologies reduced operating costs, allowing banks to open more branches, and bank tellers remained in high demand — but for different tasks, such as providing advice and selling other services. Where the bank tellers of the 1990s needed little more than basic math and communication skills, they now need to market services to customers and use more advanced workplace technologies. In short, the same job in title now requires more social skills, critical thinking skills and tech skills than it did before automation accelerated.
This story isn’t just about bank tellers. It’s about the changing nature of work and skills in the new economy. Employment growth has been fastest in jobs requiring more critical thinking and computer skills and slowest for jobs requiring the physical skills that many middle-class jobs relied on 50 years ago. Computers and robots have started filling jobs centered on routine tasks. A prime example: Of the 5.6 million manufacturing jobs lost from 2000 to 2010, 4.76 million — nearly 88 percent — were lost to productivity increases caused by new technologies. Now, artificial intelligence is allowing computers and robots to “think” and take on nonroutine tasks such as driving cars. While some pure job substitution will happen as these technologies continue to become better and cheaper, we shouldn’t necessarily be alarmed by automation replacing old jobs. Instead, we need to be alarmed by the fact that millions of workers won’t have the right skills to fill the new jobs that will be created.
Marriage counts, even in Europe
W. Bradford Wilcox and Laurie DeRose for the Brookings Institution: It is easy to see why some conclude that marriage does not matter. But here’s the thing: Marriage is itself strongly associated with family stability. U.S. children born to cohabiting parents are twice as likely to see their parents’ relationship end compared to children born to married parents …
It turns out that even in Europe, cohabitation is markedly less stable for children than marriage. Analyzing data from 16 countries across Europe, we find that children born to cohabiting couples are about 90 percent more likely to see their parents break up by the time they turn 12, compared to children born to married parents.
In France, for instance, children are about 66 percent more likely to see their parents break up if they are born to a cohabiting couple. The gap is again visible even for highly educated couples …
Our results suggest that there is something about marriage per se that bolsters stability. It could be the elaborate ritual marking the entry into marriage; the norms of commitment, fidelity and permanence associated with the institution; the distinctive treatment of family and friends extended to married couples; or, most likely, a combination of all these things and more that promotes greater commitment and stability.
Compiled by Joseph Lawler from reports published by the various think tanks.
