AI at the crossroads

The impact on jobs, the creative industries, and the case for universal basic income

Every month we see new stories about developments in artificial intelligence, from Google successfully testing their Waymo selfdriving “taxi”, to OpenAI creating Sora, an AI video creation tool that even industry experts are warning creates content so life-like that it could put thousands out of a job – from Hollywood to everyday content creators. Where we at one stage believed (falsely, it turns out) that the creative industries would be safe, the level of concern has raised to such an extent that actor, filmmaker and studio owner, Tyler Perry, has put plans for an $800 million expansion of his studio in Atlanta on ice.

While there are hopes of new jobs being created by the widespread adoption of AI, and we are constantly reassured that AI will not replace us if we embrace it and learn to make it work for us, Perry believes it WILL cost jobs: “[As] I was looking at it, I immediately started thinking of everyone in the industry who would be affected by this, including actors and grip and electric and transportation and sound and editors, and looking at this, I’m thinking this will touch every corner of our industry… and it’s not just our industry, but it’s every industry that AI will be affecting, from accountants to architects.”

These developments are adding fuel to calls for some form of universal basic income, ideally funded by AI firms, the so-called “Big Tech”, or some form of tax on AI output – the idea being that we finally achieve, if not utopia, then at least some form of future where the robots work for us.

Universal basic income (UBI), while still somewhat controversial, is not a new idea. Numerous trials and tests have been completed all over the world, including in Namibia, and even renowned thinkers like Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mill and Bertrand Russell have all supported the idea of a UBI in one form or another.

Detractors of a UBI often claim that it will remove the incentive to work, or that recipients will simply squander the money on drugs or alcohol, but the results consistently belie this argument, with the trial that took place in Namibia finding that:

• income-generating activities increased by 15%

• child malnutrition decreased by 32%

• the school drop-out rate fell to almost 0%

• crime fell by 32%

• healthcare became more accessible as more people could afford it.

Another argument often levelled against a UBI (including by former President Hage Geingob) is that aid should be targeted only to those who need it. Again, studies have shown that applying a UBI rather than targeted aid is far more efficient, cheaper and allows even those people on the margins of society who may have some form of income, and therefore do not qualify for targeted aid, to improve their standard of living and that of their family.

Whatever your thoughts on a UBI are, it is undeniable that the rise of AI has added to the importance of the debate and a sober analysis of what kind of future we want. The companies creating these AI models continue to make massive profits off other people’s work, and as founder of the Income to Support All Foundation, Scott Stantons asks: “Why should only one or two companies get rich off of the capital, the human work, that we all created?”

... it is undeniable that the rise of AI has added to the importance of the debate and a sober analysis of what kind of future we want.

On a personal note, I end this month’s column by saying my goodbyes of sorts. I have now written 14 columns for FlyNamibia and been recognised on a flight once (to be fair, I don’t fly all that often). Whether you have read more than one of these columns or this is the first one you have seen, I would like to thank you for taking the time to read what I have had to say. It has been a great pleasure to share my thoughts with you, but my time as broadcast editor at Future Media News has come to an end, so I have to leave my monthly musings and hand this column over to another pair of hands.

I do hope to be able to continue contributing to the magazine in the future, whether it is on a monthly or more ad hoc basis, so perhaps I’ll get to talk to you again – just wearing a different hat.

And perhaps another mother will one day look across at me, point to her magazine and ask if that is me, before tapping her daughter on the shoulder and saying: “Dis hy!”

Until next time, enjoy your journey.

David Bishop