Capital and the elites that wield it, do they always win from these revelations? No, no. I think creating the right type of technological path can be beneficial for capital as well. But in the last four and a half decades, many business managers have gone much more into a strategy that squeezes labor hard. Again, that can generate profits for capital, but it's not the only thing that generates profit to a capital.
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