The Panama Canal is very important because it is the big project of Ferdinand the Lesseps, who was the epitomization of the techno-optimism of the second half of the 19th century. He went in thinking he could do exactly the same, but in two ways, the Panama was very different. 22,000 plus people died. Thousands of best engineers from France perished. Millions of dollars equivalent of money was lost by many, many small investors. It was a complete disaster because he was approaching it with the same set of blinders that had become more confident because of his earlier successes.
In the Middle Ages, agricultural advancements enriched the nobility and the Church, which used the wealth generated to build themselves magnificent houses and cathedrals, while the peasants went hungry. The early years of England’s industrial revolution brought stagnant incomes for the working class. In recent decades technological advances have put untold amounts of wealth into the hands of the 0.1 per cent, while today, the sudden leap forward in artificial intelligence is threatening jobs and democracy through automation, data collection, and surveillance.
But does it have to be this way? MIT economist Daron Acemoglu has an alternative vision. His big idea: wrest control of AI from the hands of a few arrogant tech leaders and empower society instead. Is technology too important to leave to the billionaires? Can AI really be democratised? Listen now to this conversation hosted by Carl Miller, recorded in London.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices